Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS AFTER PRAYERS

BARCLAYS BANK BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [23 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

NHS Capital Programme

Mr. Christophepher Hawkins: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what precisely he gives to the National Health Service capital programme.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): The Government give high priority to investing capital in the NHS. Capital expenditure in 1983–84 was 23·5 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1978–79 when we took office.

Mr. Hawkins: Is it not a fact that, despite Opposition claims that we have been cutting the Health Service, we are now including the biggest hospital building and rebuilding programme that Britain has seen since 1948? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will continue to concentrate spending on the areas of most need?

Mr. Fowler: Certainly, I give my hon. Friend that assurance. My hon. Friend is correct, inasmuch as we are seeking to restore the cuts that were made to the capital programme by the previous Labour Government, when the capital programme was cut by one third.

Mr. Pavitt: Does the Secretary of State regard the £30,000 invested in the training of each nurse as one of the priorites in his capital programme? If so, would it not have been more appropriate for him to have given the House the opportunity to consider the review body's report on nurses than to have the information given by the Prime Minister in a written answer on Friday?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. First, it was on Thursday. Secondly, it is customary to announce

the review body's recommendations and the decision on them in that way. Thirdly, that matter has nothing to do with the NHS capital programme.

Mr. Carter-Jones: What about those new buildings which have been put up but not opened because of cutbacks on current account?

Mr. Fowler: We have been trying to achieve a better planning system in the Health Service than the one that we inherited. In the past, all too often capital projects went ahead without any thought to the revenue consequences. Fortunately, we have managed to reform that, where the previous Labour Government failed.

Mr. Dobson: If the Minister is so proud of his efforts to increase the capital programme, when does he intend to put capital spending on the Health Service under this Government back to even the average annual level of that of the previous Labour Government?

Mr. Fowler: Between 1976 and 1978 capital spending in real terms went down fom £735 million to £571 million. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that we are already considerably above that.

NHS Activity Rate

Mr. Robert B. Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether there has been any improvement in the National Health Service activity rate.

Mrs. Peacock: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of patients being treated in hospitals at the latest date for which figures are available.

Mr. Fowler: Across a broad range of services the number of patients treated has risen over the last five years. Comparing 1982 with 1978, the NHS treated nearly half a million more inpatients and day cases, nearly 2 million extra outpatients and emergency cases, and nearly half a million more people were visited in their own homes by health visitors or district nurses. The average daily number of hospital inpatients in England in 1982 was 280,000.

Mr. Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his answer. Does that information not show that the reality within the NHS is very different from what is often claimed by Opposition Members? However, is it not the case that those figures disguise considerable variations between districts? Under-resourced districts within over-resourced regions, such as mine, are in particular difficulty because the growth in population is much more rapid than the shift in resources. Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to meet a delegation from the North-West Herts district to discuss this problem?

Mr. Fowler: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health would be only too glad to do that. I give that guarantee on his behalf. I have visited Hemel Hempstead and I know of the problems to which my hon. Friend referred. He is right. The number of patients being treated has increased substantially under this Government.

Mr. Galley: What additional resources from the productivity savings of increased activity levels have been identified for patient care, so that improvements in services are made for patients? Is it my right hon. Friend's


policy on incentive schemes for district health authorities that they can keep the proceeds of productivity savings to improve their local health services?

Mr. Fowler: We want to do that in principle. It was one of the Griffiths recommendations that health authorities should be able to keep the savings achieved by productivity improvements, and we shall certainly work towards that end.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend take seriously the work that has been done by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) in unearthing people who do not turn up for outpatient appointments and those in hospitals——

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is another question on that matter.

Mr. Meacher: Is not the reality of the NHS performance this year seen in the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's so-called 1 per cent. growth figure has already been cut by 0·25 per cent. because of his failure to cover all the costs of the nurses' pay award last week, that it has been cut by a further 1·5 per cent. because of the need to take account of the greater numbers of elderly people and the rising costs of medical technology, and that it will be cut by a further 2 per cent. if ancillary workers receive a pay award which is merely in line with inflation? Is not a 3 per cent. cut this year in NHS spending levels a resigning matter?

Mr. Fowler: It would be if it were remotely true, but, as always, the hon. Gentleman is extravagantly wrong. In real terms we have added 1 per cent. to the health budget. In their reports to us the health authorities have said that they can provide a further 1 per cent. We have asked the health authorities for about £36 million out of that £200 million to provide for pay.

Legal Aid

Ms. Harman: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in his rewriting of his Department's legal aid instructions, the L code, he will revise the instructions about section 22 of the Legal Aid Act.

The Minister for Social Security (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): No decision has yet been taken.

Ms. Harman: Is it not about time the Minister admitted that the instruction to DHSS officers to breach section 22 of the Legal Aid Act is a blatant piece of law breaking by the Government? Are there not double standards, in that there appears to be no prosecution of that blatant piece of law breaking? Should not the hon. Gentleman resign over the fact that he has presided over giving an instruction which breaches the criminal law in an important respect?

Dr. Boyson: It seems to be a heavy casualty day—like D-day plus seven today. We are awaiting legal advice from the Attorney-General, who is giving this matter his urgent attention. [Interruption.] I mention to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who is enjoying his time in the Commons, that the arrangements under this Government are the same as those that have been in operation since 1951, under three or four Labour Governments. Former Ministers in those Governments are now on the Labour Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Is the Minister not ashamed at making funny remarks from the Dispatch Box about official secrecy being used to cover up official law breaking, when his officials are attempting in some instances to prosecute women who wish to spend a night with a friend and when the unemployed are being pressurised by snoopers?

Dr. Boyson: The basis of the social security system is that it should give help to those who need it, not to those who do not. That has been the intention of every Government and it is this Government's intention as well.

Coronary Heart Disease

Mr. Coombs: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the Canterbury report on the prevention of coronary heart disease.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): We welcome this report wholeheartedly. It is an important source of advice on ways of reducing the risk of coronary heart disease, which is now a major cause of death in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Coombs: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree with the principle of funding the prevention of heart disease as a way of reducing the cost to the nation of funding the cure of heart disease when it becomes established in the middle-aged and the elderly? When does he expect to be able to publish the COMAC report on the medical aspects of dietary regimes?

Mr. Patten: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his supplementary question. The Government are convinced that prevention, above all else, is of the greatest importance. We shall publish the report as soon as possible after its receipt from the chief medical officer's advisory committee, on which we depend for advice. I prefer to rely on that source of professional advice rather than on the absurd body which The Times tells me has been set up by the Greater London council today, called "The London Food Commission", which is meant to give us advice on these important matters. This is one more example of why the GLC should be shut down as soon as possible.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that the Health Education Council has no chance of competing with gigantic food industries in its attempt to explain the dangers of some foods which can cause cancer, strokes, or heart disease? As some foods are dangerous and cause heart disease, will the hon. Gentleman quadruple, at least, the council's budget, to assist it in its attempt to fight heart disease?

Mr. Patten: The council does valuable work, in co-operation, for example, with the British Nutrition Foundation, on these important issues. We keep the council's budget under constant review and we must await the independent medical advice to which I have referred before we decide what action is appropriate.

Mr. Sims: Will my hon. Friend reconsider the amount that is being spent on preventing illness and disease, as distinct from treating it, to ascertain whether we have achieved the right balance? Will he pay special attention to the recommendation in the Canterbury report that there should be far more energetic Government support for the prevention and control of smoking, which is one of the largest causes of coronary disease?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is undoubtedly aware of the recent important report of the Royal College of Physicians, which attributes 20 per cent. of the deaths from heart disease to smoking.

Mr. Lofthouse: What arrangement has the Secretary of State made for miners who are single, who are suffering from coronary heart disease or other diseases and need constant medication? When they receive their prescriptions from their doctors, there is often no one available to take the prescription to a chemist? What arrangements have been made to deal with these single miners?

Mr. Patten: Every case is dealt with, and no one in need of medication by prescription will be denied it.

Outpatients (Appointments)

Sir David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the effect upon National Health Service costs of patients failing to keep their outpatient appointments.

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further information he has received, since he last answered oral questions, on the number of National Health Service patients not keeping appointments duly made for them at National Health Service hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Patten: We do not at present collect the information which would be needed to estimate the cost of failed appointments.
The Health Services information steering group has recommended that the number of failed appointments should in future be included in statistical returns to health authorities and to the Department, and health authorities have been asked to plan on this basis.
If patients are to be encouraged to keep their appointments, it is important to look carefully at the way the clinics are run. This is primarily a local responsibility, but we are considering whether the Department could usefully give further guidance on the organisation of outpatient appointment systems and will be discussing this with the medical profession.

Sir David Price: To encourage my hon. Friend and his Department to follow the line of action that he has proposed in his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that in one hospital in Hampshire, in the month of March, 1,200 patients failed to keep their outpatient appointments? Does he agree that this not is a unique experience and that it is a matter to be taken seriously at the Elephant and Castle?

Mr. Patten: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern and of the problem in the Southampton and South-West Hampshire district health authority. Two things have to obtain. First, clinics have to be well and efficiently run. Secondly, prospective patients must recognise their moral responsibility to turn up on time for appointments in order not to waste valuable National Health Service resources.

Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware, pursuant to my raising this question at the last DHSS Question Time, that asking patients to rely on their moral responsibility is hardly concomitant with the Government's responsibility effectively and efficiently to manage the Health Service? I am glad that one of my hon. Friends says nonsense, because that confirms the rectitude of my view. Will my

hon. Friend confirm that the Wessex area health authority is not unique in this regard and that a large sum of money and the time of many skilled doctors are wasted as a result of what is going on?

Mr. Patten: I agree with my hon. Friend. I said as much to our hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) a moment ago. My hon. Friend is right. As at the last DHSS Question Time, I point the finger at the need for more effective management in the Health Service. That is why we rely so much on the recommendations of the Griffiths report, which my right hon. Friend has commended to the House.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Will the Minister accept that one reason for failed appointments is that the time that elapses between making the appointment and the appointment date is lengthening in many areas? Will he institute research into the link between lengthening waiting times for appointments and failed appointments?

Mr. Patten: I can give the hon. Gentleman some good news. We are discussing with the West Midlands regional health authority the possibility of running an experiment in that area—a bed bank experiment—to look at exactly these issues.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Minister aware that one of the reasons why people find it difficult to keep appointments is the long distances that they have to travel because small community hospitals, such as the Waterloo hospital in my constituency, which provide a worthwhile service are being closed? Many people who travel long distances cannot get financial assistance, even though they are unemployed or on low incomes. A constituent of mine will go blind if she does not get financial assistance from the Health Service to enable her to travel to London for treatment.

Mr. Patten: It is the policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to keep a good balance of Health Service provision in large and small hospitals. The hon. Gentleman has only to look at the figures for GP beds in such small hospitals to see that they have not gone down in the last five years.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Will my hon. Friend accept that, although he has been unable to give the House any figures, the cost of these missed appointments must be great, as must be the effect on waiting lists? Furthermore, any patient who knows that he cannot keep an appointment can always telephone and say so. Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of improving arrangements to encourage patients to keep appointments?

Mr. Patten: Of course we will. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. It may be of interest to her and to my right hon. and hon. Friends to know that the average cost of a broken appointment seems to be between £20 and £50.

Death Grant

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when the death grant was first set at £30; and what is its present real value.

Dr. Boyson: The death grant was increased to £30 in 1967, and would need to have been increased to about £165 in November 1983 to restore the 1967 value.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that many elderly people are fearful about what is to happen to them because the death grant is so inadequate, and that many would like to face death with dignity? That is being denied to them at present. When will the Minister do something to raise the level of death grant to a figure commensurate with the present high cost of funerals?

Dr. Boyson: To increase the level of the death grant to what it was in 1967 would cost about £120 million a year if it were paid to all people. I appreciate the concern of older people in this regard. The last Labour Government, like this Government, did not find a solution to it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in April that we shall want to consider the death grant together with the whole of social security over the coming years, along with the other surveys that we are doing.

Dr. Mawhinney: Does my hon. Friend realise that the majority of those who do not need the death grant would be happy for their contribution to be given to the minority who do need it? Do not that minority need the grant to be increased quickly?

Dr. Boyson: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. Three schemes put out for consultation two years ago involved transferring money to those who were most in need. However, no agreement was reached. I remind my hon. Friend — [Interruption.] There are means tests, income tax and many other things in Britain.
I agree that most people would like the money to go to those who desperately need it. I believe that that view is shared on both sides of the House. I remind the House that last year the DHSS paid £2·6 million to 13,000 people who could not afford funeral expenses. That grant covered about half of the funeral costs.

Mr. MacKenzie: Does the Minister remember that about four years ago we were promised an answer to the whole question of the death grant? Even the most patient of us are now finding that patience wearing rather thin. Is not the cost of a modest funeral for ordinary working people between £300 and £350? Should not the Minister find some solution to the problem at the earliest possible opportunity?

Dr. Boyson: I appreciate that the cost of a funeral can be between £300 and £600. However, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that inflation has been a cause of the drop in the real value of the grant, and that of that drop 47 per cent. occurred under a Labour Government, compared with only 35 per cent. under the Conservative Government. The last Labour Government did nothing to solve the problem—they did not even consult about it.

Mr. Fry: I appreciate the Government's problems, but will my hon. Friend look at the assistance given by the DHSS towards funeral expenses? Do not many people often give permission or instructions for a funeral which, quite frankly, they cannot afford, and then find themselves in great difficulty trying to pay for it?

Dr. Boyson: I take my hon. Friend's point. We shall study that matter and I shall discuss it further with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How much does it cost to administer the issuing of the death grant, and what proportion is that of the grant paid? Do the Government

now hold the record for putting off a decision on the death grant, or is there another area of decision-making in which they have taken so long to reach a decision?

Dr. Boyson: The cost of administering the death grant is £12 million; the cost of the death grant itself is £17 million. I know that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the speed with which the Government works and is therefore disappointed in this case.

Mr. Dickens: Is my hon. Friend aware of the discomfort and grief not only of the bereaved but of the officers in his Department who have the embarrassment of explaining the death grant to the bereaved? Can we not either get rid of the stupid £30, which hardly covers the price of a wreath, or make new arrangements? We must do one thing or the other, because the present system is absolutely stupid.

Dr. Boyson: I note the point that my hon. Friend puts so elegantly. No doubt we shall deeply consider his view.

Mr. Hugh Brown: Does the Minister's earlier reply mean that he has legitimised the permanent delay in making a decision by including it in the comprehensive review?

Dr. Boyson: That is not the Government's intention. However, as the whole of social security is being reviewed, it would be odd to deal separately with one part of the whole.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Can the Minister give the global figures more succinctly? What proportion of the cost of the death grant is applicable to administration?

Dr. Boyson: I thought that I had replied to that question earlier. However, I shall help the hon. Gentleman, who is obviously too far away to hear. The overall cost of the death grant—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will listen, he might understand. The overall cost of the death grant is £29 million. The cost of administration is £12 million.

Mr. Eastham: If the hon. Gentleman genuinely wishes to give assistance, particularly to old people, with the cost of funerals will he consider excluding funerals from VAT, as such people have the terrible burden of paying VAT even on the cost of burial?

Dr. Boyson: That is a point for the Treasury, and I am sure that it will have noted with interest the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Supplementary Benefit

Mr. Loyden: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the number of people on supplementary benefit, office by office, in Liverpool at the present time.

Dr. Boyson: Liverpool local offices are paying supplementary benefit to 195,600 claimants at present. With permission, I will provide the office-by-office figures in the Official Report.

Mr. Loyden: I am over here. Is it not scandalous that the Government, instead of encouraging those who are entitled to benefits to claim them, have brought into Merseyside an army of snoopers, which is having the opposite effect on people who are entitled to benefit? Will


he support the action taken by the Merseyside county council in promoting its take-up campaign, which has produced evidence that this is the case?

Dr. Boyson: I am sorry that I did not look at the hon. Gentleman when I was replying. I was looking at other Liverpool Members to bring them into our conversation. As about 25 per cent. of the households in Liverpool are receiving supplementary benefit, one cannot say that the DHSS there is too harsh on its administration. One in four is a fair factor. I do not know how many people from the special claims unit of the Department have been in Liverpool, but I shall look into this matter and write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Mr. Parry: Have not people on supplementary benefits been badly affected by the policies of this Government and in particular by the introduction of VAT on take-away meals? This affects pensioners, single-parent families and large families on supplementary benefit. In Liverpool, I know of cases where take-away shops have experienced a drop of between 20 and 25 per cent. in their takings because people cannot afford to pay for these meals.

Dr. Boyson: The hon. Gentleman's question about VAT is one for the Treasury. On supplementary benefit, I remind him that the value of the purchasing power of supplementary benefit is 5 per cent. higher than it was when we came into office and for children under five and between five and 12 there has been a 27 per cent. increase in real terms in the value of supplementary benefit.

Mrs. Beckett: Will the Minister answer the question put to him in the first place by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden)? The Minister said casually that the fact that one in four households can claim benefit proves that the system is generous. Whether they are getting their full entitlement is quite another matter, particularly considering the way that the Government consistently fiddle the regulations and even take illegal action. Will the Minister welcome the action taken by Merseyside county council?

Dr. Boyson: The hon. Member for Garston (Mr. Loyden) asked me how many people were drawing supplementary benefit in Liverpool and I gave that figure —the actual figure down to single numbers was given, which shows this Government's grip on administration. Merseyside and Liverpool had a take-up of 600,000 cards, which went out last year, if my memory serves me right, and an increase in take-up came from that. Although largely single payments were made, that was at least a help.

Following are the figures:

Supplementary benefit claimants



Thousands


Belle Vale
13·6


Birkenhead North
16·2


Birkenhead South
9·8


Garston
9·2


Huyton
14·7


Kirby
15·6


Norris Green
8·5


St. Helens
18·4


Toxteth
13·5


Wallasey
11·1


Wavertree
7·9


West Derby
10·0


Bootle
12·8

Thousands


Breckfield
14·4


City
9·2


Crosby
10·7

Acute Beds

Mr. Freud: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has had from health authorities where a shortage of acute beds is further exacerbated by non-regional specialty referrals.

Mr. John Patten: None, Sir.

Mr. Freud: Will the Minister accept that the Cambridgeshire problem of second referrals and the financial burden of being classed as a centre of excellence are very expensive for a county and do infinite harm to other people in the county? Will he, as a matter of urgency, allocate extra resources for an in-depth analysis of what is going on?

Mr. Patten: I will not accept that. Adequate provision is normally made for cross-boundary flows between local health authorities. Secondly, the East Anglia regional health authority is instituting a high-level review, which involves the Cambridgeshire and Huntingdon district health authorities, to look at these issues. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman should accept some of the responsibility for the state of affairs in East Anglia., for it was in the period of the last Labour Government that East Anglia resources for the Health Service got way behind. That Government were supported by the Lib-Lab pact, and it has been this Government who since we took office, have increased expenditure on the NHS in East Anglia to a higher level than it has ever been. We shall continue to do so.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Should a patient have to travel for specialist treatment from an area where that treatment is available in the private sector from doctors who also have a contract with the National Health Service?

Mr. Patten: It is up to consultants to decide what they do in their free time regarding work in the private sector. It is important that National Health Service waiting lists are examined so that there can be maximum flexibility and people can be switched from one waiting list to another where the waiting time is shorter.

Dr. Mawhinney: Does my hon. Friend accept that if the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) pressed the Cambridge authority to run its district as efficiently as the Peterborough district is run—as it covers my constituency and part of his—he would not: have the basis for his question in the first place?

Mr. Patten: While I am happy to give some praise to my hon. Friend's own district health authority, the last: thing I wish to do is to criticise the Cambridge district health authority, whose chairman is doing an admirable job tackling some of these detailed problems. The root of the problem goes back to the underfunding of East Anglia. between 1974 and 1979, which the Government are correcting.

Child Benefit

Mr. Yeo: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the current year's uprating of child benefit.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): We have received representations from the Child Poverty Action Group, the Family Forum, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children and the Trades Union Congress.

Mr. Yeo: Does my hon. Friend agree that although increasing tax thresholds is one way of tackling the poverty trap, a more cost-effective way would be to increase child benefit? Accordingly, will he bring as much pressure to bear as possible on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that child benefit is increased this year by a percentage not less than the increase in tax thresholds?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate the uprating statement, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must make in due course. I am sure that both he and the Chancellor will take note of what my hon. Friend said. The only basis on which increases in child benefit can reduce the poverty trap is if existing means-tested benefits are comparably reduced, that is, if dependence on means-testing is reduced. There is a conflict between tackling poverty and tackling the poverty trap.

Mrs. Beckett: Does the Minister accept that since his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) is correct in saying that raising child benefit is the most efficient and effective way of reducing poverty, if that increase is not comparable with the increase in tax allowances it will be seen as evidence that the Government are more interested in methods of change to help the wealthy than in those which give greatest help to the poor?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady made a number of points about a difficult area, which must be considered. However, she is plain wrong in saying that increases in child benefit are the most effective way of tackling poverty.

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the effectiveness of child benefit is blunted by its indiscriminate nature? Does he agree that the problem is that too many people, probably including many hon. Members, are receiving child benefit when, patently, they do not need it? Will he consider that point?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Minister for Health is currently chairing a review of benefits for children and young persons. I am sure that he will note what my hon. Friend said.

Industrial Disputes (Claims)

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied that his Department can deal speedily with the claims of those involved in industrial disputes and adequately meet the needs of the claimants' dependants.

Dr. Boyson: We are satisfied that the Department can deal speedily with claims from those involved in industrial disputes and that the needs of strikers' dependants are being met up to the full extent allowed by the Acts and regulations.

Mr. Pike: Does not the Minister think that the way in which the guidelines have been tightened harshly against the miners, as has been shown during the present industrial

dispute, is totally wrong? Does he agree that it is totally wrong to take into account gifts given by charitable organisations and other donations given to miners' families during the present dispute?

Dr. Boyson: There has been no change in the regulations. There has been an interpretation of the S code of 1980 and other factors, but there has been no change. Regarding the question of gifts, all gifts over £4 are taken into account for anybody who receives supplementary benefit, not only for strikers.

Mr. Couchman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Social Security Act 1980 deems that strikers will receive £15 per week in strike pay from their union, which is quite properly taken into account, and that the NUM decision not to provide any strike pay out of its enormous reserves is utterly reprehensible?

Dr. Boyson: The NUM was perfectly aware of the position before the strike began. The provision to which my hon. Friend refers was in the 1979 Conservative manifesto and became part of the law of the land in 1983. As for the extent of the NUM's reserves, I once read in the Financial Times that they exceeded £27 million.

Mr. Ashton: Why is it that the wife of a murderer who goes to prison does not lose £15, but the wife of a striker does? As for social security benefit, why have some people who have appealed against the Department's decisions been waiting as long as 12 weeks for their appeals to be heard, due to the Government's deliberate policy of starving strikers back to work?

Dr. Boyson: There is no such deliberate policy. More than 800 officers are working on miners' benefits and we have given postal claim forms to the NUM to distribute.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the position of a striker is totally different from that of a person in prison because a prisoner cannot come out and go to work tomorrow. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had not realised that. We have to look after the prisoner's wife because he is no longer in a position to do so, but strikers can go back to work tomorrow and look after their wives themselves.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that miners in Nottinghamshire and elsewhere have solved the problem by continuing to work?

Dr. Boyson: I cannot add to the delightful and accurate point made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that according to a secret Government document — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] entitled,
Guidance Additional to the S Manual — Miners' Strike 1984,
loans from social work departments, weekly payments to miners' families and their children, cash payments from the NCB in lieu of concessionary coal, meal vouchers for children and one-off payments by local authorities by voucher to miners' children are all, for the first time, being counted against supplementary benefit, thus robbing miners' families of that additional value to which they are entitled? Is that not the most blatant and politically motivated fiddling of the social security system to try to force the miners into submission and back to work? When will the Minister stop this vindictive and illegal campaign against the miners?

Dr. Boyson: As it happens, I have a copy of that so-called "secret" document with me. So far as I know, there


is also a copy in the Library. If the hon. Gentleman has any other secrets, perhaps he will share them with me. If that document is not already in the Library, it will certainly be there tomorrow. [Interruption.] I said that I believed it was already there. I am not so arrogant as the hon. Gentleman, who thinks that he is always right. Even Conservatives sometimes make mistakes. Nevertheless, I believe that the document is in the Library.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, supplementary benefit is, by definition, supplementary to other money coming in. It has always been held that if someone is receiving £4 or more in cash or in kind that income should count against supplementary benefit. It is purely a matter of interpretation as to how that applies in the present case. There is not one iota of change in the law.

EC (Reciprocal Arrangements)

Sir William van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will circulate a list of the reciprocal arrangements with European Economic Community members which give British citizens access to their social services.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): EC regulation 1408/71 determines the circumstances in which British citizens have access to social security benefits and health care in other member states.

Sir William van Straubenzee: Does not the reference that my right hon. and learned Friend has so helpfully given emphasise that membership of the EEC brings with it, or increasingly will bring with it, among many other things, the reciprocal benefit of access to other countries' social security provisions? Is that not an additional reason for this country remaining an active member of the Community?

Mr. Clarke: Just so. The present arrangements ensure that nationals of this country have access to the health care and social insurance systems of other countries on exactly the same basis as nationals of those countries. In all our work in the Council, the British Government work to simplify and improve the arrangements. I have not the first idea where the Labour party would take us if—should it come to power and try to carry out whatever its policy on the EEC might then be—it tried to renegotiate all those beneficial arrangements.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that, in Italy, the Mafia has devised a system of supplementing income and thus providing a social service for members of the family by means of what is known as the tinned tomato scandal? Are any reciprocal arrangements in operation on that matter?

Mr. Clarke: No, Sir, but no doubt the Greater London council is exploring the possibilities.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. John Browne: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and

others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Mr. Browne: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the subject of taxation and, in particular, the spurious allegations made by the Leader of the Opposition about the likelihood of the imposition of VAT on food? Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House and the nation yet again that the Government have no intention whatsoever of imposing VAT on food?

The Prime Minister: We get this scare at every election, whether it is a general election or a Euro-election. We are used to it. It represents an attempt by the Opposition to divert attention from their total absence of policies on Europe.
We have no intention of extending VAT to food. The Leader of the Opposition should remember that it was a Labour Chancellor who put VAT on confectionery, ice cream, soft drinks and potato crisps. He should remember that it was a Socialist group in Europe which presented a report which tried to abolish zero rating, and a Conservative group in Europe which restored zero rating.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister still say, on behalf of her Government and her party, "We are not going to intervene in the coal dispute"?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The term "intervention" is very well understood. The right hon. Gentleman has been trying to persuade me for a very long time to get both sides along to No. 10 Downing street for beer and sandwiches so that I can be told, "Give 'e m the money, Maggie."

Mr. Kinnock: The evidence of the Prime Minister's intervention for the mischievous purposes of deepening and embittering this dispute is now obvious and proven, and the evidence of her deceit is also proven by the way in which she has continually claimed not to be involved while in fact, for all the wrong reasons, she is directly involved. Will the Prime Minister now apologise for her deceit and use her power to encourage the negotiating parties to come to a speedy and mutually satisfactory result to the dispute?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman asks me to intervene in the way in which I refuse to intervene.

Mr. Warein: g asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wareing: Now that the Secretary of State for the Environment has been to Liverpool and seen just a little of the housing problem facing the city council, and has said that the council is right to regard it as a priority, will the Prime Minister review the housing investment programme for Liverpool? Furthermore, will she consider restoring her reputation as the Iron Maiden by having the guts to visit Liverpool to confirm the situation—and next time she visits Liverpool, will she come in broad daylight?

The Prime Minister: I seem to remember that last time I went to Liverpool it was very broad daylight.

Mr. Wareing: And everybody was asleep in bed.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: I hope that, for the moment, the hon. Gentleman is awake. With regard to the more serious aspect of his question, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a joint paper has been produced by officials of the Liverpool city council and officials of the Department of the Environment on options for achieving a balanced city council budget for 1984–85. It has been presented to the city councillors and the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is due to meet councillors to discuss it. In the meantime, I understand that the auditor has written strongly advising the council to set a rate by 20 June. I hope that it will do so.

Viscount Cranborne: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the announcement in this morning's press that the Americans have managed to shoot down a warhead in space? Will she take time today to consider whether that event has any implications for the purchase of the Trident missile?

The Prime Minister: It would be extremely unwise to rush into any conclusions on the basis of a press report or to make any statement without considering its full implications. The difference between one event and turning it into working technology is enormous, especially in this sphere.

Dr. Owen: In view of the Prime Minister's proven involvement in British Rail's pay offer, will she spare the House the humbug of pretending that she is not involved in decisions about whether British Rail should now invoke the civil law in relation to secondary picketing by members of the National Union of Railwaymen? Will she now tell us what she thinks should be done?

The Prime Minister: I have already said, in case the right hon. Gentleman has not noticed, that should the great nationalised industries invoke the civil law, the Government will not override their decision.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Atkinson: Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr. Denktash and some other Turkish-speaking Cypriots are shortly to host a dinner at the Savoy hotel which 40 or 50 of the Prime Minister's Back Benchers will attend and which will be addressed by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who will associate the Tory party with the Turkish annexation of Cyprus? Will she dissociate herself from that annexation and assure the House that no Government facilities will be made available for any trade negotiations during Mr. Denktash's visit to the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government have condemned the attempts to declare an independent northern Cyprus. The Government wish there to be a unitary state of Cyprus and have supported and will continue to support the efforts of the United Nations to bring both sides together to achieve the restoration of a unitary state of Cyprus. With regard to other matters, right hon. and hon. Members are free to do as they wish.

Sir Peter Blaker: Has my right hon. Friend any comment to make on the deafening silence of the opposition parties when the Prime Minister of South Africa was received by the Pope?

The Prime Minister: No. I sometimes prefer the deafening silence to the other thing.

Mr. Marlow: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree with this summary of the European election campaign, that whereas the Labour party, quite properly for it, puts Socialism first and the Liberal and Social Democratic parties put Europe first, Conservative candidates are putting Britain first? Does she further agree that every Conservative candidate is committed to the retention of the national veto, favours increasing free trade in the Community, and is against a federal system for Europe?

The Prime Minister: I agree broadly with my hon. Friend. With regard to the veto, our manifesto makes it clear that we wish to retain it as it is. With regard to our attitude to trade in Europe, we wish to reduce the internal barriers. Of course, I am against a federal Europe.

Mr. Parry: Does the Prime Minister agree that the House was deliberately deceived by the Government about intervention in the miners' dispute? Does she state now whether the Secretary of State for Energy actually saw the letter from Andrew Turnbull to Henry Derwent? Will she also agree that the Secretary of State yesterday treated the House and the National Union of Mineworkers with contempt by saying that he could not remember seeing the letter because it was not important?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the precise papers that the Secretary of State for Energy sees, I suspect he has seen a great deal more than I have, because he is the sponsoring Minister. With regard to intervenion, right hon. and hon. Members are still urging me to intervene by getting them all to No. 10. I have not done so, and will not do so. I have repeatedly said that this Government have set——[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member wishes to call it intervention, I must tell him that this Government have provided £2 million per day for investment in the coal industry. They have seen to it that money is there for a very good deal for the mineworkers and that the best voluntary redundancy terms are available. They have seen to it that there are extra subsidies and extra prospects for manufacturers who wish to turn from oil to coal. If that is intervention, yes, I have intervened, but asking them to No. 10 and beer and sandwiches, no, never.

Mr. Wallace: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wallace: Is the Prime Minister aware that during the European election campaign at least one Conservative candidate has received the active support of Captain Kent Kirk, who in January of last year showed such blatant


contempt for the British fishing industry and British fishery law? Does the Prime Minister welcome the support that Conservatives have from Captain Kirk?

The Prime Minister: If we have only one candidate taking a particular view, that is very different from the Liberal party. None of their candidates appears to take the same view.

Mr. Richard Page: What does my right hon. Friend think about a group which campaigns against apartheid, which is violently against the visit to his country of Mr. Botha but at the same time in certain of its constituency branches is actively setting up black-only sections?

The Prime Minister: I have noted it. I think that it is humbug and double standards.

Mr. Straw: Since, under the Government's own chosen measures, Conservative-controlled Portsmouth has overspent to a much higher degree than Labour-controlled Sheffield, what sympathy has the Prime Minister for the problems of the Secretary of State for the Environment in trying to manufacture a list for rate-capping which ensures that Sheffield is included but that Portsmouth is excluded?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the rate-capping measure has not yet been enacted. It is still before the other House and it would be somewhat premature to devise a list before that Bill has even become an Act. Hon. Gentlemen will remember that that, of course, was the habit of the Opposition when in government, but I think that it is a little premature at the moment.

Mr. Dobson: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dobson: May I plainly ask the Prime Minister to intervene beneficially in a further industrial dispute, to take steps to ensure that the women, already on poverty level wages paid by Messrs Crothalls at Barking hospital in East London, benefit from a settlement that will give them decent levels of pay and working conditions? If she will not, is she not admitting that the future of the Health Service depends on the payment of wages below the poverty level to many ancillary workers on whom the Health Service depends?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The savings are going to provide more nurses and on extra patient care.

Mr. Bellingham: Has my right hon. Friend heard the news that a well-known SDP parliamentary candidate has defected to the Tories? Does she agree that after next Thursday there will be more such defections?

The Prime Minister: I hope that a large number of others will follow the same course, because it will be the wisest thing that they have ever done.

Mr. Renton: asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Renton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Comecon summit meets this week in an atmosphere of bitter division in the Communist bloc, whilst the London summit last week emphasised agreement in the free world? Is there a lesson which Moscow might learn?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct. On East-West relations the summit last week stood absolutely solid in the view that it took on defence. It also pointed out that we are always willing and, indeed, wish to enter into greater dialogue across the West-East divide. I think that that is the right course of action.

Mr. Home Robertson: Since the Government are undeniably involved in the coal dispute, will the Prime Minister change the habit of a lifetime and say something helpful? Will she give an unequivocal commitment to the future of the Scottish coalfield and to the necessary development in Stirling, Fife and Musselburgh bay, which are essential for the future of that so-called peripheral coalfield?

The Prime Minister: I shall gladly repeat what I said earlier, which is very helpful for the prospects of the coal industry. The Government have provided £2 million a day investment in coal — a greater investment than that provided by any other party. The Government have seen to it that the money for voluntary redundancy is better by far than that provided under any previous Government. The Government see great future prospects for the coal industry and hope that the miners will return to work to take advantage of those prospects.

Parliamentary Expressions

Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on behalf of myself and a number of my hon. Friends about what action Back Benchers can take when Ministers of the Crown lie to the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a word that I can accept in the House. He must withdraw it.

Mr. Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Members: "Withdraw."

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that word and rephrase his remarks.

Mr. Dobson: Could we seek your advice, Mr. Speaker?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I withdraw the word "lie". Could we seek your advice about what action Back Benchers can take when Ministers apparently deliberately mislead the House? Is it more against our rules to call someone a liar than for them to lie in the first place?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter is frequently put to me. I used to have an interest in parliamentary tactics. I still have, but the hon. Gentleman will have to find his own methods.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that Question Time is central to the whole system of legislative control of the Executive? Is it not nonsense if the House of Commons condemns using the word "liar" but on the other hand condones the act of lying by Ministers who are supposed to be answering to the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) is too experienced to try that one on the House. He knows perfectly well that for good order in this place we must not attribute dishonourable motives to each other in the Chamber.

Mr. Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I can accept that entirely. It is utterly wrong to attribute dishonourable conduct to a Member who has not behaved dishonourably. The point that we now have to

face, which the rules do not provide for and on which we need your guidance if the situation is not to become worse, is what happens when a Member does behave dishonourably to this House. There seems to be no rule to cover that and we need your guidance for the protection of the House and of Back Benchers.

Mr. Speaker: This is a perennial question. Ever since I became a Member of the House I have heard charges of this kind. Our debates must be discussed in good order and I shall insist upon that.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When a Minister was last found guilty of misleading the House, it was a resignation issue. I seek your guidance. If a Minister is found guilty of deceiving the House, whatever language he uses, should not those who carry the title of right hon. or hon. Member do the honourable thing and resign?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What arrangements can be made to see to it that the Prime Minister and other Ministers involved in this deception take a polygraph test, especially as they thought that was a wise thing to do to those at GCHQ?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We had better move on to the Prime Minister's statement.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It wastes time.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is not a waste of time, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday you ruled that to say that a Minister was deliberately misleading the House was an unacceptable term. I notice today that you did not rule when a similar statement was made. Some of us felt that yesterday's ruling was very fierce, but we accepted it. Do we take it from today's reply that some flexibility has entered into your views?

Mr. Speaker: No flexibility at all. If the hon. Gentleman will read the record, he will see the adverb "apparently" before "misleading the House". That is what made the difference.

London Economic Summit

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the tenth annual economic summit which was held in London from 7 to 9 June. Heads of State or Government of the seven principal industrialised countries were present, accompanied by their foreign and finance or economic Ministers, together with the President of the European Commission, who was accompanied by Monsieur Ortoli.
I have placed in the Library of the House copies of the economic declaration and of declarations issued on democratic values, East-West relations and terrorism, together with a statement about our discussions on the Iraq-Iran conflict. I shall deal first with the political issues.
The summit considered it timely to restate the values which bind the Western democracies, particularly at the end of a week when we had been remembering the very different conditions of 40 years ago. Too often we have seen the Western case go by default while Governments who deny democracy maintain an unceasing flow of propaganda.
At British initiative, we had a thorough discussion of the problems posed by terrorism. There was unanimous determination to confront and defeat international terrorism whatever forms it may take. We identified a number of detailed proposals which will be followed up in the working group of experts from the summit countries.
On East-West affairs the summit, having stressed the need for resolve and solidarity, stated our readiness for dialogue and our hope that the Soviet Union will react constructively and positively. We expressed our belief that East and West have important common interests: in preserving peace; in enhancing confidence and security; in reducing the risks of surprise attack or war by accident; in improving crisis management techniques; and in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.
We also discussed the conflict between Iraq and Iran. We expressed our regret at the breaches of international humanitarian law which this conflict has brought and called for freedom of navigation to be respected. As to oil supplies, we were satisfied that, given existing stocks of oil and the availability of other sources of energy, adequate supplies could be maintained for a substantial period of time by international co-operation and mutually supportive action.
The primary purpose of the summit was to discuss economic matters. On these we reached the following main conclusions. First, the declaration pointed out that economic recovery can now be seen to be established in the summit countries. It is more soundly based than previous recoveries, thanks to the firm policies designed to bring down inflation. But to sustain recovery, and spread its benefits further, requires unremitting efforts. We agreed, therefore, to continue and where necessary to strengthen policies to reduce inflation and interest rates, to control monetary growth and reduce budget deficits.
Secondly, as unemployment in our countries remains high, we emphasised the need for sustained growth and the creation of new jobs; the need to ensure that industrial economies adapt and develop in response to demand and

technological change, including in small and medium-sized businesses; and the need to encourage active job training policies and the efficient working of the labour market.
Thirdly, on international debt, the problems will be easier to resolve if world recovery is sustained and policies are followed which are conducive to lower interest rates. We reaffirmed the case-by-case approach. We agreed that with the strategy we have adopted the problems are manageable. We identified a number of matters which require further attention. Among them: that, where debtor countries have successfully made efforts to adjust their economies, we will encourage multi-yearly rescheduling of their debts; that we should like to see even closer co-operation between the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, whose role should be strengthened; and that developing countries should be encouraged to open their economies to increased direct investment from the industrialised countries and to substitute longer-term direct and portfolio investment for short-term bank lending.
Fourthly, the summit urged all countries to reduce trade barriers and liberalise and expand international trade in manufactures, commodities and services. We agreed to consult our GATT partners with a view to early decisions on the timing and objectives for a new negotiating round.
Fifthly, we agreed on a new programme of research and co-operation, the better to establish and deal with the causes of environmental pollution.
To sum up, the summit expressed the clear view that the economic strategy we have been following is right and that we should continue to pursue it. We did not leave it at that. We set out in the declaration a 10-point action programme for the next 12 months. This includes a series of specific measures for reducing obstacles to the creation of new jobs; and records our agreement to seek to maintain and wherever possible increase the flow of official aid to developing countries, particularly the poorest; and to encourage more openness towards private investment flows. The declaration as a whole sets out a global approach to the economic situation and deals comprehensively and positively with current needs and problems.
This was a workmanlike and constructive meeting which achieved a very large measure of agreement on the basic objectives of our respective policies, on both the economic and political fronts.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: The Prime Minister said that the primary purpose of the summit was to discuss economic matters, and I shall confine my questions to that. The Prime Minister and the communiqué referred to recovery in the world economy. That is good news, of course, as far as it goes. But when the Prime Minister says in her statement that
the summit expressed the clear view that the economic strategy we have been following is right",
is the reference to America's strategy or hers? Obviously they are absolutely opposite. Does not the right hon. Lady agree that any signs of life have come largely as a result of the expansion of the United States' economy, despite her lectures to the President?
Will not the Prime Minister face the fact that capital is being pulled to the United States of America by the vigour of its economic revival, and that we shall draw capital back to Britain and Europe, without an interest rate war, only if and when our economy is stimulated into a similar expansion? Will her efforts to control monetary growth in


keeping with the summit declaration exclude the raising of interest rates? If that is her intention, can she explain how the squeeze on the supply of credit will bring stability or a reduction in the price of credit for industries and families in Britain?
The failure of the leaders of the strongest economies to take systematic and serious initiatives to deal with the current and growing debt crisis in an unforgivable evasion of the responsibilities that go with their immense power. Does the Prime Minister understand that her self-righteous approach to the needs of the people of the Third world is yet further evidence of her pervading lack of concern for poor people, whether they be in this country or elsewhere? Why does she refuse to comprehend that, if others in the world are denied the power to spend, our people will not get the proper opportunities to work, to produce and to earn? How did she have the gall to agree to the communiqué when her policies absolutely contradict the declarations on technological change, job training, efficient working of labour markets, flexibility in working time, official development assistance and much else? After five years of reduced investment, cuts in training, jobcentres, overseas aid and much else, that is a massive insincerity, even by the Prime Minister's standards. It is matched only by the vanity which she displayed in this empty epic over the weekend.

The Prime Minister: The comments in the communiqué on recovery and expansion were the conclusions of all seven Heads of State and Government plus Mr. Thorn. They said together:
That recovery can now be seen to be established in our countries. It is more soundly based than previous recoveries in that it results from the firm efforts made in the Summit countries and elsewhere over recent years to reduce inflation.
All countries have made efforts to reduce inflation. I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition is so critical of the conclusions of President Mitterrand and Prime Minister Craxi.
On monetary growth and interest rates, the communiqué said that we shall pursue policies to keep down monetary growth and interest rates. Interest rates in the United States are a great deal lower now than they were three or four years ago. Indeed, they are only about half what they were. We have set out a programme to deal with the debt crisis—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman does not agree. Apparently, Mr. Larosière of the International Monetary Fund does. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is out on a limb on his own.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman thinks it wrong that in the declaration of democratic values published by all Heads of Government and State at the summit we said:
We are aware that economic strength places special moral responsibilities upon us.
We think that; perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not.
We have been foremost in encouraging technological change. No other Government have acted so strongly in educating children on technological change. We have introduced computers in schools and a big computer training programme for young people. We have also helped particularly to launch new products, particularly for small businesses. The communiqué pointed out the importance of that in securing new jobs.
The fact is that once again the right hon. Gentleman is out of step with all the other countries.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister accept that it is particularly difficult to take from her today the statement about the values of Western democracies the day after every hereditary backwoodsman in the land has been hauled into the other place to push through a Bill which seeks to switch the political complexion of the government of London with no democratic election whatever?
Secondly, what effort did the right hon. Lady make at the summit to obtain a common EC line against the high interest rates of the United States? Does she accept that that continues to stifle economic recovery in both the developed and the underdeveloped world?
Thirdly, how is the right hon. Lady's talk about preventing the spread of nuclear weapons consistent with the President of the United States entering into the Star Wars concept of space? How does it square with her determination to press ahead with the proliferation involved in the Trident programme and with her reluctance to put the French and British nuclear deterrents into the equation in dealing with East-West relations?

The Prime Minister: May I point out that the majority of 20 in their Lordships' House the other day was far higher than that received on Second Reading of most Bills under the previous Labour Government which the right hon. Gentleman supported? The Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill was put through with a majority of six and the Bill which set up the National Enterprise Board was put through with a much smaller majority than 20. As the right hon. Gentleman supported the previous Labour Government, he is in no position to criticise.
We are all pursuing policies which will try to reduce high interest rates. The United States is, of course, pursuing a policy which will reduce the deficit by reducing public expenditure and increasing taxation which together will amount to $150 billion.
I repeat what I said earlier on the reported experiment that has taken place. It would be a very rash person who would conclude future policies on the basis of one experiment. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, it takes an enormous time on the experimental stage to produce weapons and an enormous amount more on testing. In the meantime, wise Governments ensure that their people are defended and wise Governments deter potential aggressors.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Did those at the summit recognise that the international debt crisis is concentrated largely on a very small number of countries, especially Argentina, Brazil and Mexico, and that there is a real danger that too many additional resources are being devoted to their problems rather than the Third world countries which are the poorest and the most in need of aid?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is the first hon. Member to note that the poorest countries are not so much those that are in debt difficulties, because, on the whole, we try to get more aid to them. Aid is far more appropriate than large loans which they could not possibly afford. I agree with my right hon. Friend that a number of other countries are facing debts. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has seen Mr. Larosiére's speech at the


Philadelphia conference and has noted the excellent way in which he said that the matter should be dealt with, a way that we warmly endorse.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Does the Prime Minister agree that little profit is to be obtained by nagging the United States about its budget deficit, as it is largely the United States budget deficit that has been responsible for whatever recovery we have? Would it not be better to get a number of like-minded countries to co-operate in reducing interest rates, even if that meant some increase in the money supply?

The Prime Minister: No one was taking the United States to task for its budget deficit, because the United States has said that it is making a down payment to reduce its deficit. The phrase "down payment" implies that there are other substantial instalments to come.
Our recovery started before the recovery in the United States. We are all of one mind to continue policies to reduce inflation, to restrain public expenditure and public borrowing and to hold monetary growth. That is the right strategy, and it was agreed by every head of Government.

Mr. Peter Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problems of the international indebtedness of the Latin American countries and, to some extent, the developing countries are being caused not only by the United States budget deficit but by the fact that their exports have been hampered by restrictions on trade because of quotas? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the GATT negotiations to which she referred will be an adequate instrument to deal with those restraints?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the debt position is aggravated by any increase in interest rates. It is not possible to argue with that proposition. An increase in interest rates causes problems to those countries when they are already struggling with their international indebtedness. As my hon. Friend knows, countries such as Mexico and Brazil have made the adjustment process. Mexico has just received multi-schedulings, and does not have to come back on a yearly basis for rescheduling its payments of interest rates.
I agree with my hon. Friend that, if the debtor countries are to get out of their indebtedness, they must be able to export their goods more freely to industrialised countries. They must be able to trade their way out of the problems, and that matter was very much taken on board at the summit. A number of people tried to get a specific date for a decision on a new GATT round. As we are not the authority that can take the decision on GATT, we shall have to consult our colleagues with regard to that matter before we commit ourselves.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Prime Minister aware that the difficulties of developing countries, which are caused by the commercial banks, cannot be solved either by the piecemeal case-by-case approach, which the right hon. Lady embraces or by the communiqué, which she obviously espouses? The developing countries need, first, time and, secondly, lower interest rates to enable them to repay their debts. That can be done only by a joint Government approach. What is the Prime Minister doing about that?

The Prime Minister: I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. He said that those problems cannot be solved

on a case-by-case basis. I quote from the speech by Mr. Larosière of the International Monetary Fund made at the Philadelphia conference of bankers. He said:
there are no magical solutions to the problems we have been facing. Proposals have been made for panaceas such as writing off part of the debts or transferring them wholly or in part to official institutions … those proposals have attracted little support. One reason for this is that each country's debt situation has its own specific features that cannot adequately be taken into account in generalized approaches.
That was the view that he took and that was the view that we took, and I believe that it is the right one. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it will help to keep interest rates down if we try to keep down public expenditure and deficits.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: Although it certainly brings its own problems with it, if we do not want to see a drastic reduction in United States expenditure on defence, on which the security of the free world depends; and if we do not want to see a sharp fall in the prices of raw materials, on which the living standards of the Third world depend; and if we do not wish to see the loss of the only great market in the world in which Britain enjoys a large surplus on her banance on trade; should we not be a little chary of joining the chorus of those who, often for their own and varied reasons, seek to blame most of the economic problems of the world on the fact that the United States is running a budgetary deficit of about 5 per cent. of its gross domestic product?

The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend reads the communiqué, he will find that we did not blame most of the problems of the world on the United States deficit. Indeed, the United States is not mentioned in it. We observed that if we are to have a sounder based and sustainable recovery we must continue to keep down inflation and restrain public expenditure, monetary growth and deficits. That applies to each and every one of us and that is the policy that we are pursuing. My hon. Friend will find that that strategy was endorsed in the communiqués issued by many previous Heads of Government summit conferences.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Door' Valley): Will the Prime Minister answer the question that she did not answer when she replied to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel)? How does she reconcile signing a declaration on democratic values with the abolition of elections to the Greater London Council and the metropolitan counties?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed that question to be raised, but I do not think that the House should now persist with it.

Mr. Foulkes: The Prime Minister was one of those who signed the declaration on democratic values. Perhaps she will tell us how she explained the fact that London will soon be the only capital city from Washington to Tokyo and from Edinburgh to Cardiff that does not have an elected council covering the whole city.

The Prime Minister: The issue was not whether the elections should be cancelled. The issue was whether GLC councillors should continue for a further year or whether others should continue for a further year. As the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said from the Opposition Front Bench on 11 April, he could sympathise with the Government's belief that it would have been wasteful to hold elections. The question was whether we


should prolong the mandate of GLC councillors after that mandate had been exhausted, which would have been a wrong precendent which could have been used to prolong the mandate, for example, of the House. That would have been constitutionally wrong. It would clearly be wrong to prolong a mandate after it had been exhausted. The issue was whether we should substitute for those councillors other councillors who would take over the responsibility — [Interruption.] The hon. Member does not like hearing the right answer. However, Mr. Speaker allowed the question and therefore I must give the right answer. Councillors whose mandates have been exhausted will be replaced by councillors who still have a mandate on their district councils.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have an extension of Prime Minister's Question Time. I allowed the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) to ask the question, but perhaps I should not have done so. We must return to the subject of the economic summit.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister has just said——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order after questions on the statement.

Sir Paul Bryan (Boothferry): In the course of the proceedings my right hon. Friend had talks with the Japanese Prime Minister. Was he able to give her any assurances on the prospects of the opening up of that market?

The Prime Minister: Obviously we considered that because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Japanese have recently embarked upon a liberalisation of their capital markets which we hope will be advantageous to other countries, including our own. I think that the Japanese Prime Minister is very much for investment by Japanese firms in this country because, as my hon. Friend knows, they have a greater surplus of currency, and they would like it to be used in that way.

Mr. Bryan Gould: In her answer to my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister pointed out that American interest rates had fallen substantially at the same time as its budget deficit had risen to record levels. How does she explain that fact?

The Prime Minister: Because, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, the price of money varies with three factors: inflation, the Government deficit, and the private sector demand for money. Each of the three must be taken into account.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people in this country and abroad would wish to congratulate her on the constructive lead which she has taken in the economic summit meeting in London? In view of the fact that the prudence exercised by this Government may inevitably be directly affected by the economic policies pursued in the United States, can my right hon. Friend be very hopeful that the down payment which has been made this year by the American

Administration will be followed immediately after the forthcoming elections by a real contribution towards budget deficit reductions in the United States?

The Prime Minister: I take it that that is what the phrase "down payment" means, and that is why it was used. That down payment will be followed by further measures to reduce the budget deficit in the coming year.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: In regard to the economic declaration, does the Prime Minister recall that on two or three occasions recently she has assured the House that it is not the Government's intention to initiate any new moves on industrial training or job creation? Why then did she not propose to issue a minority statement, following the declaration, unless this new statement indicates a fundamental change in Government policy?

The Prime Minister: It is not a fundamental change of this Government's policy; it is a continuation of this Government's policy. We have one of the best schemes the world over for job training for young people.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with all its faults, the Bretton Woods conference of 40 years ago did much to underpin the banking system? Does she also agree that, in the current state of uncertainty, such a gathering could be of material benefit, and why does she object, or appear to object, to such a conference?

The Prime Minister: Because we now have, as a result of Bretton Woods, the very international financial institutions that we did not have before that time. It is the existence of those international financial institutions—the IMF, World Bank and the various aid agencies—and the various political summits that we have had that enable us to take action to counter the world economic difficulties. None of that could have been done before the International Monetary Fund or World Bank existed.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Does the Prime Minister accept that when she speaks about recovery, particularly in this country, it is largely based on North sea oil? Could she explain what the likelihood would be if, instead of exporting about £10 billion in terms of investment across the exchanges to the United States and elsewhere to strengthen their manufacturing base, we had more investment to strengthen the manufacturing base in the United Kingdom? Would she accept that, while we are not disappointed in her posture in relation to the deprived sections of the world, we recognise her posture in relation to the deprived section of the United Kingdom, some of whom were demonstrating in London on Thursday, and she would have been much more beneficially employed by meeting them rather than attending the summit?

The Prime Minister: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is nonsense, and he knows it. Does he really suggest that one should not be in charge of a summit when all those people have been asked to London? If it has come down as far as that to ask a question, I am just astounded.
The recovery depends not only on North sea oil. Much manufacturing industry is extremely efficient. The chemical industry is exporting extremely well. The car industry, when it is not on strike, has also put its own house in order, and its exports and sales here are going up. Investment in manufacturing industry over the last year


has increased by 10·5 per cent. We have had inquiries many times, and they have found that there is plenty of money for investment. It is not just investment itself which is good; it must be productive investment. As the hon. Gentleman will see from the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry one has to have not only the investment, but also the design, the goods and the price at which they will sell.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: On a broader question, does my right hon. Friend agree that the summit may have been useful not only in the agreements that have been struck but also in the disagreements that may have been discussed? Will she continue to press for further such summits, and for summits which embrace the Eastern bloc in order to defuse the tension in the world?

The Prime Minister: There is a paragraph in the communiqué which points out that one of the most valuable aspects of the summit is that we meet to discuss world economic problems and world political problems. I think that all who have been engaged in the 10 summits that we have had would agree that that is the most valuable aspect of them.
In the East-West communiqué, we said that we would attempt to have more dialogue between West and East. With that in mind, President Mitterrand will be going to Moscow later this month, I understand, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will be going to see Mr. Gromyko in July. Naturally we are concerned about the apparent isolation of the Soviet Union—a self-imposed isolation. We wish, for the reasons given in the communiqué, to have more discussion and to keep contact with them.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Prime Minister explain why she condemns those countries that deny democracy, yet her Government continue to support regimes in countries like Chile, El Salvador and South Africa? Could Liverpool and other hard-pressed local authorities benefit as well from multi-year rescheduling of debt in the way that Right-wing countries in central and southern America have benefited? Does the reduction in trade barriers for which the countries are aiming include a reduction in trade restrictions on cheap food coming into Common Market countries from elsewhere in the world? If the economy of these countries is recovering, will she deny that a moratorium will be announced on all local authority capital expenditure?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman's questions were highly artificial. We prefer democracy, and I notice that the hon. Gentleman makes good use of it, although some of the political views that he espouses do not always grant as much democracy as he receives.
With regard to Liverpool, I have already said in answer to earlier questions that a paper has been prepared by officials, and will be discussed shortly.

Mr. Julian Amery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the less developed countries, electoral pressures push towards default, and in the more developed countries towards deficit? I congratulate her and her colleagues on having successfully resisted these pressures so far. Does she agree that a substantial part of the deficit of the United States arises from its armaments programme, for which we should all be grateful?

The Prime Minister: I hope that we shall not be faced with full-scale default on the part of the debtor countries. It would have considerable consequences. Because of that, strenuous efforts are made through the IMF to encourage them to have adjustment programmes, and, when they have adjustment programmes, to have loans made available to them through the international financial institutions, backed up by commercial banks. I think that on the whole that has been a successful programme.
I am well aware of the increased amount which the United States has spent on defence, because her deficit would not be so significant if at the same time there was not a high demand from the private sector because of the recovery.

Mr. Gavin Strang: When the economic declaration refers to the creation of new jobs by encouraging flexibility in the pattern of working times, does it mean that a reduction in the working week has a contribution to make to reducing unemployment? If that is the case, is that the policy of the British Government?

The Prime Minister: It does not mean that. The reduction in the working week without a proportionate reduction in wages would have the effect of putting up unit costs, which would mean that we could not sell goods, thus adding to unemployment.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's policy, which is to solve the world crisis by flinging money at it, is even more ridiculous in relation to the whole world than it is in relation to this country alone?

The Prime Minister: It is precisely the one way in which we cannot solve the problem. When looking through the communiqués of the other summits before I attended this summit, I noticed that almost every one of them had put in the forefront of its strategy the need to keep down inflation.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Given the case-by-case approach, and the dangerous position that we are told by Mr. Rodgers, Mr. Fleet and other serious financial commentators is developing with the IMF delegation, what constructive ideas has the Prime Minister on the specific and unique problem of the Argentine debt? Would not it be wise to follow some of the advice given by the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware that that Select Committee was discussing the economy of Argentina. Indeed, I doubt very much that it was. The Argentine debt is already the subject of negotiations between the Argentine Government and the IMF. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about negotiating with Argentina the sovereignty of the Falklands, the answer is no.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her emphasis upon the contribution of direct and portfolio investment to world recovery, especially in the developing countries, will be most welcome? Did the summit consider any schemes for investment protection, which would greatly help the developed countries to increase investment in the developing countries?

The Prime Minister: I agree that some of the debtor countries could reduce their debts substantially either by


sale of assets or by portfolio investment. That course is available to them. It would make a great deal of difference if there was an international code of practice for investment protection. A restricted number of countries have codes, but there is no international code as yet. It is true that a new Government that took over a country by coup could flout that code, but it might help in the meantime to secure more internal investment.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the right hon. Lady aware that one reason why the majority of British people treat the summit with a great deal of cynicism is that, by and large, bland statements are issued? Only on a few occasions has there been anything specific mentioned, such as at the Venice summit attended by the Prime Minister a few years ago, when a declaration was made that there would be a doubling of coal production in European countries. Does not that fly in the face of what the Government and the Prime Miniter have recently been doing to the coal industry——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are going off track again.

Mr. Skinner: I have not finished yet.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his question to the summit.

Mr. Skinner: I am doing that. I am making the point about the cynicism of the British people towards summits. Does it not embrace what the Prime Minister once said when she was in Opposition, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) used to attend summits? She said that they were a complete waste of time. Has not this summit, which cost the taxpayer £2·5 million, been nothing more than a top people's junket to launch, among other things, Ronald Reagan's election campaign?

The Prime Minister: I use to say from the Opposition Dispatch Box that I thought that the main value of the summits was the getting together of the Heads of Government and not necessarily the communiqués. I have not departed from that view.
Britain was in considerable difficulties with oil supplies during the Venice and Tokyo summits. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that currently we can hardly have even the coal that we need because many of the miners are on strike.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a wide welcome for the further progress on collaboration on manned space stations? Should not United Kingdom policy be determined urgently? Is there not an opportunity here for European collaboration or bilateral collaboration with NASA?

The Prime Minister: We have received a generous invitation from the President of the United States to participate in the new manned space station. The United States intends to put one into space in any event. We have the opportunity to consider whether we, either alone or with some of our partners, want to participate in that research. It opens great possibilities for research that would not otherwise be available to us. We shall consider the invitation carefully.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does not the statement by Mr. Donald Regan that there is no connection between high interest rates and the high budget deficit in America wholly undermine the Government's justification in introducing four years of public sector cuts? Is that not precisely what the Labour party has been saying for the past four years? There is no connection. Will the right hon. Lady learn from Mr. Regan, who appears to know more about the matter than does the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

The Prime Minister: But Mr. Regan is introducing a down payment and, later, other measures to reduce the deficit. I rather thought that the $150 billion down payment was going before Congress. Interest rates are determined partly by the deficit, partly by the inflation rate and partly by other demands from the private sector for credit. When the deficit is high and there is a high demand for credit from the private sector, the interest rate is high.

Mr. Mark Robinson: The World Bank development committee is seen in the communiqué as an appropriate forum for representative discussions on some of the issues aired during the summit. Yet The Times, in its headline yesterday, went one step further and envisaged a world monetary meeting being held in 1986. I can find no reference to that in the communiqué. Can my right hon. Friend clarify the position?

The Prime Minister: I know of no arrangement to have a world monetary meeting in 1986. We continue to survey the monetary arrangements and the inflation performance of each country, but most of us take the view that we now have the international financial institutions which we did not have before Bretton Woods, that they are being used and that they can continue to be used. They have been adapting themselves to modern conditions. Therefore, we do not need a further institution.

Mr. David Winnick: Does the right hon. Lady recognise and admit that the summit was a propaganda exercise with no worthwhile purpose? It will not offer any ray of hope to the millions of people in this country who are unemployed, especially those in the west midlands who have been devastated by the policies pursued by the Government since 1979.
Does not the statement on democratic values smack of hypocrisy? Is not the United States busy, in every way possible, helping Right-wing dictatorships and, as in Chile in 1973, taking an active role in undermining democratically elected Governments?

The Prime Minister: It is absolutely right that a summit of Western industrial countries should proclaim the values in which we believe and which we operate in Britain. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who takes such advantage of democracy, does not proclaim the values that he uses.

Viscount Cranborne: Should not this House be grateful that the summit has considered the whole question of the Iran-Iraq war? During its deliberations, did it consider the possible interest and potential influence of the Soviet Union on the course of that conflict? Did it consider the possible use of Afghanistan as a base for furthering that influence, with particular reference to Soviet activity among Iranian Baluchistan, and also the use of the base at Shindand for naval reconnaissance aeroplanes over the Indian ocean?

The Prime Minister: No, but we are very much aware that it would be easy for the Soviet Union to misread the signals. Therefore, efforts are being made to ensure that it does not do so.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her initiative in having the subject of terrorism discussed at the summit. Does she agree that it was somewhat disappointing to find that some of our allies did not seem to be supporting, other than in a lukewarm way, the original British paper on this subject? Will she continue to press for a co-ordinated international response to this problem?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we got a good response in the Council of Europe, and I think we had a good response from the summit, and one from the European Economic Community Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs. The communiqué from the summit makes a great advance on anything that we have now on co-operation and information on international terrorism.

Mr. Michael Hirst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a wide welcome for the summit's restatement of its commitment to arms control negotiations? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, although the response from the Soviet Union has so far been disappointing, her Government will press on with diplomatic negotiations and so soften the ground for the meaningful negotiations that we hope will come next year?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend implied, the communiqué makes it clear that the United States has said that she will return to the negotiating table without preconditions. We hope that there will be a response to the United States invitation. In the meantime, we continue the dialogue in Stockholm in the conference on disarmament, in Vienna where we have been negotiating for nine years on mutual and balanced force reductions and in Geneva where we continue to negotiate on the nuclear non-proliferation agreement and also on chemical warfare. There is a good deal of dialogue across the negotiating table, but not specifically on nuclear weapons, and we should like a return to the negotiating table. It would be unwise to be too optimistic about how soon that will occur.

Mr. Harry Greenway: The communiqué talks about the creation of new jobs. Will my right hon. Friend say in which sectors she expects these new jobs to be? Was it envisaged in the discussions that there would be co-operation between seven countries? Will they be acting individually or together to create new jobs?

The Prime Minister: We spent some time on this. It would seem that in the United States and Japan most of the new jobs have come from high technology and from the service industries. In both cases, many of these jobs came from small businesses and the creation of new business.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Winterton.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I thought that I was wearing invisible clothes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is no good getting frustrated about these matters. The hon. Gentleman has the same rights as everybody else, and he has now been called.

Mr. Winterton: My right hon. Friend, quite rightly, expressed grave concern about unemployment. In her

statement, she stressed that the liberalisation of trade was very much part of the package that had been announced in the communiqué. Is she aware that the liberalisation of trade without adequate safeguards on unfair competition will work against the best interests of employment in this country? Will she answer that point directly, and also give an assurance to business that interest rates will not be raised here? If the package that follows the summit is to mean anything, will she assure us that there will be stimulation of the economy along the lines of the package recommended by the CBI, with modest capital public expenditure?

The Prime Minister: With regard to free trade, I agree with my hon. Friend that one cannot simply have one group of countries opening up its markets for trade without adequate safeguards for fair competition and without others similarly opening up their markets. The poorest developing countries cannot do that, but there are many newly industrialised countries that give protection to their own markets but expect to be able to export freely into others. That is the subject of a GATT working party, and I hope that the working party's conclusions will be accelerated and that there will be a report before the new round of GATT on which we are consulting our partners.
I cannot say anything more about interest rates than I have. Judging by our performance, there is no need for interest rates to rise.

Mr. Kinnock: I shall not detain the House long, but, in view of the Prime Minister's references to the declaration of democratic values, and the way in which she has perversely used those references in answers to my right hon. and hon. Friends, I wish to point out that, set against the background of her economic and constitutional policies, it is she who has made those fine values, set out as they are in the declaration, look like decorative tinsel.

The Prime Minister: Nonsense.

Mr. Allan Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the Prime Minister's answer to me she did not disagree with any of the facts that I put across or with my arguments, but she seemed to doubt my motives and to cast aspersions——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot answer such questions.

Mr. Roberts: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you and previous Speakers have ruled on the calling in doubt of the motives of right hon and hon. Members. I submit to you that that is what the Prime Minister did in her answer to me——

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: Aah.

Mr. Roberts: It is all very well saying "Aah". I, in the spirit of 1944, have been fighting for democracy and civil liberties all my life, as did my father, who landed on the beaches of Normandy without being ordered to land there. I submit that to have my motives disputed in that way is a breach of parliamentary privilege, as you, Mr. Speaker, and other Speakers have ruled.

Mr. Robert Parry: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not disgraceful that the Prime Minister should cast aspersions on my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), who is always arguing for democracy, when there are several


Members of the Conservative party who are openly supporting Fascist regimes such as Chile, South Africa, Indonesia and the Philippines?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the Prime Minister did not intend——

Mr. Winnick: She did.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the Prime Minister did not intend to impute any dishonourable motive to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts).

Mr. Roberts: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have disposed of the matter and there is nothing more to be said about it.

Mr. Peter Shore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You addressed your remarks to the Prime Minister, hoping that she was not casting aspersions on the integrity and motives of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). Either the Prime Minister was or was not doing that, and we are entitled to know.

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I used any words that could bear that construction.

European Community Documents

Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the two Questions on the motions relating to European Community documents.

Ordered,
That the unnumbered European Community Document concerning beverage containers, contained in the Department of Trade and Industry's Explanatory Memorandum dated 30th March 1984, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
That European Community Document No. 8721/83 concerning discharges of hexachiorocyclohexane (lindane) be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Pool Competitions Act (Continuance) Order 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Garel-Jones]

Right of Reply

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give members of the public the right of reply to allegations made against them or to misreporting or misrepresentations concerning them in the press, on radio or on television; to set up a media Ombudsman; and for connected purposes.
I start by declaring an interest as a member of the National Union of Journalists, and that interest lies in better journalism and more responsible media. Neither of those interests is held at the moment, or fulfilled, by the popular press, against which this measure is directed. That is not to say that the electronic media are perfect. They have enormous powers, so when mistakes are made they have an enonnous impact. They also have an institutional inertia—an amour-propre—which makes them slow to apologise, but they are nevertheless impartial and responsible. They have a conscientious attachment to standards, but none of these things can be said of the popular press.
With the single exception of the Daily Mirror, which I regard as a cut above the rest of the popular press, we have a vicious, prostituted press, which besmirches the democracy which it should be serving and educating. It is—this is not the least of its crimes—overwhelmingly Tory, with no higher sense of duty than to act, not as the Prime Minister's lapdogs, but as her yapdogs. Its members yap and bite at whoever stands out, whoever is different, whoever is a trade unionist, whoever stands up for his rights and whoever believes in the values of liberty, equality and fraternity, or who is not 100 per cent. committed to the doubtful proposition that we have the best of Prime Ministers and a healthy economic boom and are destined for whatever cut-price greatness histrionics can bring us.
We have a press which sensationalises and trivialises and whose only deference to the great American tradition of inquiring and vigorous journalism is a prurient interest in sex and anything that is sordid and sensational and in impersonal trivia. It grovels before power, and indeed positively clamours for honours—the crumbs from the Prime Minister's table—while the Prime Minister buys support in a contemptuous fashion. At the same time, it clobbers anyone who is too weak or powerless to look after himself, and anyone who steps out of line. The measure is directed at such a press.
The ownership structure at the centre of this network is difficult to tackle. The circulation war, which debases, sensationalises and trivialises, is difficult to stop. If we cannot tackle those two problems, we cannot protect the individual against the distortions, misrepresentations, misreporting and hounding, which are becoming all too common in the popular press.
We could protect the individual by creating a legal right of reply, such as exists in statutes in France, West Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark and Canada. Such a statute should exist in the United Kingdom. In most of those countries the right of reply extends to individuals and organisations, which have a legal personality. I pay tribute to the previous hon. Member for Salford, East, Mr. Frank Allaun, for his work on this issue.
I have sympathy with the case for extending the Bill to trade unions and companies, but to win wider support today I have restricted the measure to those who need its

protections most — ordinary individuals. An ordinary individual has the greatest difficulty and diffidence in getting a right of reply. The measure will cover cases such as are often seen in popular newspapers; for example, that of Mr. and Mrs. Lipkin, who are teachers. Their house was pictured and their address given in the Daily Mail on 26 January 1984 under the headline,
Inside the nerve centre of teacher propaganda.
It was followed by a sneaky interview, with the journalist posing as someone on the Left. It was designed to focus antagonism against them, which it did. When the expected consequences occurred they protested to the editor of the Daily Mail, who called the police.
Similarly, Frank Bronwell, a miner at Markham colliery, was pictured crossing the picket line under various headings, such as "Defying the pickets". He was not reporting for work and was later on the picket line, but he had no opportunity to correct the report.
Those are two recent examples of such cases, but there are a host of others, from the mother lampooned by the Daily Express as a council house queue jumper, to the treatment of Arthur Scargill as a Yorkshire version of Adolf Hitler. All those cases merit the right of reply.
When individuals are faced with such treatment by the press, what redress do they have? They can go to law, but that costs a fortune and the results are unpredictable. Such action usually gets nowhere, and that remedy is not available to ordinary people. They can complain to the printing unions, who in previous instances have helped to enforce a right of reply through representations to the editor concerned. However, that sort of procedure should not be necessary in a democracy.
Individuals can go to the Press Council which is much improved. Delays in cases have been cut from 10 months to six months. Since February it has had a fast-track procedure, which has dealt with half a dozen cases. Unfortunately, the Press Council has no teeth. Its recommendations can be, and are, ignored by editors and proprietors. They can go to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, but that, too, is a slow procedure.
A quick reply is needed, and the Bill provides it. The Bill provides a media ombudsperson, which is an important innovation and one for which there are important overseas precedents. In the United States, about 30 newspapers, including the Washington Post, have set up their own ombudsmen to adjudicate complaints against themselves. I wish that British newspapers would follow their example. The Guardian might need a part-time ombudsman, but The Sun and The Daily Mirror would probably need five or six full-time ombudsmen. The Bill provides for an ombudsman, as an official appointee, with a staff, and follows the Swedish precedent. That is the machinery on which to build. I should like to build a standing commission on the media on it.
The ombudsman would provide a personalised, public and prompt redress system. He would be responsible for deciding whether the complaint against a particular organ of the media was justified, and if so, what redress should be given, up to and including a right of reply, which would give equal prominence or audience to the original imputations or misrepresentations.
The measure could be criticised as a restraint on the freedom of the press. It is not. It is an incentive to use that freedom responsibly and a restriction on the licence, which the press, under the impetus of the circulation war for survival, has recently misused. The importance of the


measure is not how frequently it is used, but its existence. The existence of such a right will mean that journalists, editors and proprietors will become more cautious. They will think before they write the sort of thing that will lead to a right of reply. They will be careful about the attacks, misreporting, misrepresentation, personalisation, half-truth and distortions, which have become all too common, and about which we are right to complain. The very existence of the machinery will help to check the abuse with which it is designed to deal.
At present the press is mobilising power without responsibility — the prerogative of the harlot and the newspaper proprietor — often against defenceless individuals. The only way to deal with that is to give individuals the power to hit back where it hurts.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to exercise a short right of reply to suggest that when an hon. Member takes up the time of the House with a speech that is compounded of half-truths, distortions and tendentious nonsense, there should be some way of putting that on the record without wasting further time by dividing the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. W. Benyon, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. Clement Freud and Mr. Barry Sheerman.

RIGHT OF REPLY

Mr. Austin Mitchell accordingly presented a Bill to give members of the public the right of reply to allegations made against them or to misreporting or misrepresentations concerning them in the press, on radio or on television; to set up a media Ombudsman; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 190.]

Orders of the Day — Parliamentary Pensions etc. Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is complex because in many places it amends existing statutes. I have, therefore, supplemented the guidance in the explanatory and financial memorandum by writing to all Members with a brief summary of the proposals. In addition I have arranged for the Government's notes on clauses to be available to Members on request. I hope that these arrangements have been for the benefit of the House.
The proposals in the Bill arise from three sources. Central to the legislation are the recommendations contained in the Twentieth Report of the Review Body on Top Salaries.
Secondly, there is the resolution of the House of 19 July 1983, which largely adopted the review body's recommendations, but increased the proposed Member's contribution.
Thirdly, the Bill reflects a number of suggestions that were made from within the House of Commons during the consultations that preceded the preparation of the Bill. In this context I pay tribute to the trustees of the parliamentary pension fund, for whose advice and collective experience I am especially grateful. The chairman of the trustees, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), has explained to me the reasons that make it impossible for him to be present today. He and his fellow trustees have, however, been assiduous in protecting Members' interests.
That said, it is only fair to acknowledge that the Bill is dominated by the provisions of the resolution on parliamentary pensions passed by the House on 19 July 1983.
I now come to the Bill itself. First, the Bill seeks to secure a rate of contribution that will fund an index-linked pension. The resolution of the House of July last year agreed a contribution rate of 9 per cent. This compares with 8 per cent. paid by civil servants for a slower rate of accrual, and 11 per cent. paid by the police, whose pensions accrue more swiftly. Equally significantly, a contribution of 9 per cent. is more than double the national average for non-index-linked pension funds in the private sector. That is a point worth making, as criticism of index-linked schemes such as this often fails to take account of the substantial premium that is paid to secure the benefits.
Secondly, the Bill aims to provide a rate of accrual which will yield benefits appropriate to the vagaries of parliamentary life. The review body in its report recognised the difficulty of this when it said:
MPs are not employed in the accepted sense; their career patterns are very different from those of most public servants; and they do not have the same general degree of security of employment. The need to have regard to the special nature of Parliamentary life has been raised frequently Ȇ and we have paid close attention to this point in the present review".
With that in mind, I shall briefly run through the major provisions of the Bill in terms of contributions and benefit.
As I have said, the resolution of the House in July 1983 accepted that a contribution rate of 9 per cent. would be appropriate for a scheme based upon retirement at 65 and sufficient to fund the envisaged benefits. It has been represented to the Government that as the pay of Members of Parliament is to be increased in stages the increase in contributions should be similarly staged. The Government accept this and the rate of contribution—at present 6 per cent.—will rise by 1 per cent. per year to reach the full 9 per cent. in 1987. This is covered by clause 1.
On the benefit side of the equation, the rate of accrual of a parliamentary pension is increased from one sixtieth of final salary per year to one fiftieth. This means that with effect from 20 July 1983 a Member will be able to earn a full pension in 33⅓ years instead of the present 40. The TSRB recommended this faster accrual rate to take account of the relatively advanced age at which Members embark upon parliamentary careers and, conversely, the relatively early age at which many are forced into a reluctant parliamentary retirement. This, too, is covered by clause 1.
I have said that the faster accrual rate will take effect from 20 July last year, but an order will be made when the Bill is enacted to allow Members who entered the House before that date and whose pension has been accruing at the one sixtieth rate to convert their back service to the faster accrual rate at 40 per cent. of the cost, which is also the proportion of the total new entrant contribution rate which Members will pay when the new arrangements are fully in operation. I hope that this provision will be generally welcomed as allowing Members increased flexibility in planning their pension arrangements.
An order under clause 5 will also provide that Members who have taken out contracts to buy added years at the existing sixtieths rate of accrual should be permitted to renegotiate those contracts to take advantage of the improved arrangements.
One area of particular concern to the trustees about the operation of the existing pension scheme relates to early retirement at the time of a Dissolution of Parliament. As we are all well aware, one of the ways in which a parliamentary career differs from some other occupations is that a Dissolution can occur at a time which is personally inconvenient. The normal retirement age is 65 and this Bill does not seek to change that. Indeed, I should emphasise that a retirement age of 65 is a significant feature of the parliamentary pension scheme and is reflected in the contribution rate. The existing scheme makes provision, however, for a Member aged 62 or over and with 25 years service to retire on his full accrued pension at the time of a Dissolution.
I think that that is a useful provision and clause 4 proposes that it be extended. In future, Members aged 60 or over with 20 years service who retire at a Dissolution will be able to take their full accrued pension. This facility will be available to those who retired at the time of the 1983 general election. This is a modest improvement, but one which in the opinion of the trustees and myself will be helpful in an area where hardship has been caused in the past.

Mr. Michael McGuire: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I wrote to him about a man who qualified under the service provisions with 29 years service but who, because he was under the age of 62 at Prorogation, would have to surrender quite a large amount

—26 per cent.—of his pension in perpetuity or wait until he was 65. In linking the age at which one leaves the House and the number of years of service, is there not a danger of perpetuating that anomaly? Should we not consider the possibility of a person being able to pick up his pension on reaching the age of 60 if he or she has 20 years' service?

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. As he said, he very kindly wrote to me about this. Another difficulty, however, arises when one begins to follow that line of argument. The care with which the scheme has been constructed around a retirement age of 65 is likely to be progressively undermined. It will be argued that the qualifying factor of Dissolution is no longer to be related to the age at which the pension is drawn. The 20 years' service will then be seized upon as an arbitrarily large figure so that in one way or another we shall drift substantially away from the present arrangements, which are based upon a retirement age of 65.
We have consciously made modest amendments to deal with the cases of hardship perceived in the past. If I sense the mood of the House correctly, however, I believe that we shall be returning to this aspect. Perhaps the House will allow me to rest my initial case there and we can debate the matter further in due course. I cannot, however, conceal from the House my concern to maintain the inherent integrity of the retirement age of 65 as being part of the scheme as I believe that otherwise we shall find ourselves bundled into reconsideration of the contribution rate.
There will, of course, be Members unfortunate enough to fall on the wrong side of the new line. All I can say to them is that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and drawn in such a restricted way as not to undermine the basic principle of the scheme, which is a retirement age of 65. Furthermore, I think that the House will also wish to reflect upon another proposal which should lessen hardship for those whose parliamentary careers are terminated ahead of retirement age. I refer to the review body's recommendation included in clause 3 which allows for a reduction from 60 to 50 in the age at which Members may apply for an actuarially reduced pension.
The Bill also provides for the abolition of the four-year qualifying period for benefits and for an increase in the maximum lump sums which may be obtained by commuting pensions. I intend that the revised figures for commutation limits should be incorporated in subordinate legislation.
There are a number of other improvements with which I do not propose to detain the House. One of them has, however, received some attention in the press and may be worth mentioning.
Clause 9 proposes the removal of the restriction whereby Members may only nominate a husband or wife to receive immediately the death benefit which is payable should they die in service. This has been referred to as a "mistresses' charter". For those who view the world from El Vino's I would point out only that the provision could be used to benefit a child or a child's guardian. Its main purpose is to enable Members to select whatever disposition best suits their circumstances.
It is something of an historical accident that the parliamentary pensions scheme has to proceed by primary legislation, and therefore attracts considerable publicity that is not always as fair-minded as we might wish. But


there is clearly a genuine and justifiable interest in the arrangements which Members of Parliament choose to make on subjects which so closely affect their own interests. For this reason it behoves us to proceed carefully lest we arouse the suspicion that we are treating ourselves more favourably than we would countenance for others. I believe that this Bill represents just such a cautious approach. Nobody studying with an objective eye of the report of Top Salaries Review Body and the subsequent debate can doubt that a tolerably fair balance has been struck between the need to provide a scheme that caters for the uncertainties of parliamentary life and a proper concern for the public purse. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Peter Shore: I, too, will have something to say later about the principal clauses of the Bill, but, at the start of the Second Reading debate, it is right for me to thank the Leader of the House for his clear exposition of the measure, his offer to make available the notes on the clauses of the Bill and, finally, for his deserved but generous tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and the other trustees of the parliamentary pension fund, who have undoubtedly done their best to represent the interests of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House in the period preceding the passage of the resolutions last year and the publication of the Bill.
I should also address myself, on Second Reading, to the main purpose and general context of the Bill. The Leader of the House referred to the antecedents of the Bill. I regret the fact that the general framework of the measure was, as it were, pre-set by the resolutions passed during the debate on the Plowden committee's report on parliamentary pay and allowances on 19 July last year. I regret that for two reasons. First, in the debate last July, which covered the whole field of parliamentary pay and allowances including allowances for secretarial and research assistance for Members, virtually no attention was paid to the complex and important subject of Member's pensions. I believe that the subject was referred to in only two speeches and that it occupied only a few minutes in a debate which lasted for several hours. I also regret the decisions made then because the Government successfully persuaded a new and inexperienced House of Commons to depart in two major respects from the recommendations of the Plowden report. First, the House of Commons accepted a much lower basic parliamentary salary—a decision which has, inevitably, a substantial and adverse affect upon pension entitlement. Secondly, there was the decision to raise pension contributions not to 8 per cent. as Plowden recommended but to no less than 9 per cent. It is against that background of smaller salaries, reduced allowances and increased contributions that we have to consider the Bill.
One major Plowden recommendation has been retained. The pension accrual rate is to be raised from one sixtieth to one fiftieth of final salary for each year of service. In addition—I willingly pay this tribute to the right hon. Gentleman—the Leader of the House has listened to many representations not only with his usual

courtesy but with an occasional and welcome flash of sympathy which will assist hon. Members and ease the passage of the Bill.
First, there is the central issue of the pension accrual rate. The heart of the matter was stated in paragraph 63 of the first volume of the Plowden report, which states:
The case for improving the accrual rate for MPs rests essentially on the unique nature of a parliamentary career, with its inherent unpredictability and the implications of this for pensions.
No one would dispute that view. I know that the Leader of the House certainly agrees with it.
I would not go as far as Thomas Hobbes, describing the condition of parliamentary man as:
solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".
There is too much enjoyment and exhilaration in politics for that. However, uncertainty is built into the lives of hon. Members. We do not and should not complain about that, for the principal sources of that uncertainty are the working of democracy itself with the ebb and flow of party fortune, and the occasional great tides which sweep away what had been thought to be party bastions. There is also the decennial carve-up by the Boundary Commissions, changing the shape and allegiance of hundreds of constituencies in the interests, again, of maintaining a broad equality of electoral representation. We accept all these uncertainties but, while our democracy requires them, we should recognise them and their implications.
There is another marked feature of parliamentary life to which the Leader of the House referred. We can describe it as the late entry factor. With a handful of exceptions, most hon. Members first enter the House between the ages of 35 and 45. Even if their service, once they have entered, is unbroken up to retirement age—and for the majority that will not be the case—the most that they can expect to complete by the age of 65 is either 30 or 20 years of service.
Those two factors—the built-in uncertainty of the electoral system and the relatively late entry to the House — makes the pension accrual rate important. Most public services and professions, and many private occupational pension schemes as well, aim to provide, on retirement, benefits equal to two thirds of final salary. In most cases the assumption is that 40 years of pensionable service will have been completed by retirement age. Clearly, no such assumption can be made for Members of Parliament. Given the present one-sixtieth rate, to achieve a retirement pension of two thirds of final salary would require 40 years' membership and to achieve half pay would require no less than 30 years.
In the Plowden report we read that:
A Member may derive little benefit from the parliamentary scheme if service is relatively short".
Yes, indeed. The report also states:
because a change of job is involved both on entering and leaving parliament, the pension obtained from other employment may also be reduced.
The Plowden report then lists other pension schemes that are designed to reflect a shorter than average career length. For officers in the armed forces, for example, full pension accrues over 34 years. For the police, members of the fire service and prison officers, it accrues over 30 years and for the judiciary, which we all know is recruited from people who spend many years practising at the Bar, it accrues over 15 or 20 years. The Plowden report concluded that the accrual rate for parliamentary pensions should be reduced from one sixtieth to one fiftieth. There


can he no certainty when deciding the accrual rate as there are bound to be discussions about it, but the shorter career prospects, the late entry, the in-built uncertainty and the resolution that the House passed in July 1980 lead me to conclude that one fortieth would be the best basis for calculation. However, that is not available to us because of the 1983 resolution and the Bill. One fiftieth is undoubtedly an improvement and I therefore welcome it.
If one fiftieth is considered the right rate of accrual, it would be a considerable injustice if nothing were done for sitting members in respect of their past service. I therefore welcome the arrangements described on page 3 of the explanatory and financial memorandum in regard to orders under clause 5 and section 11 of the Parliamentary Pensions Act 1978 to enable Members of Parliament to purchase
sufficient added years of reckonable service as a Member to increase their pension entitlement to what it would have been if the new accrual rate had applied throughout their period of service
the purchase price of 40 per cent. of the total cost simply reflects, as I understand it, the share in total contributions that Members make, following the introduction of the 9 per cent. rate of contribution. As the total contribution from all sources is 22 per cent., the Member's contribution of 9 per cent is 40 per cent. of the total—hence the figure used for the purchase of added years.
The increase in contributions from the present 6 per cent. to 9 per cent., as set out in clause 1, is in excess of what Plowden recommended. Moreover, it is 9 per cent. of a considerably lower salary than the Plowden report recommended. In those circumstances, it is only common sense to stage the increase to 9 per cent. from 1 January 1985 to 1 January 1987, as clause 1 proposes.
Before dealing with the Bill's other major improvement, as provided by clause 4, I should like to touch on clauses 8 and 9, which have attracted some public attention. I welcome clause 8 which, for the first time, provides for pension rights to accrue to the widowers of women Members. That is overdue and is in keeping with the spirit of the times. I also welcome clause 9 which allows an hon. Member to nominate someone other than a husband or wife to receive the lump sum gratuity that is payable on death. That lump sum has been payable since the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1972. To use the Leader of the House's vivid phrase, whatever they might think in El Vino's, there are circumstances in which an unmarried Member, or a Member who is a widower or widow, might wish to bequeath that entitlement to another member of the family, or to a friend. I understand that there has been much discussion on such provision in many parts of the public sector where improvements and revisions of pension arrangements are being discussed.
On clause 4, many right hon. and hon. Members have been worried by the operation of our present rules under which an hon. Member is entitled to draw his unabated pension rights only if he fulfils two conditions—he has served 25 years in the House and has reached the age of 62. They are both restrictions but, acting in combination, they are extremely restrictive. Cases have been cited of Members who have served 30 years and more but not reached the age of 62 and therefore had a right only to a severely abated pension. There might be other Members who conform to the age limit of 62 but have not completed 25 years of service and are therefore not entitled to a pension until they reach the age of 65. I am glad that those

conditions are now to be changed and that we can now provide an unabated pension to Members who, on Dissolution, have completed 20 years of service and reached the age of 60. It goes without saying that the possibilities of Members of that age who lose their seats finding alternative employment is negligible. I am glad that the new 60–20 formula, if I might use that shorthand, is to be made retrospective to the Dissolution of June 1933.
I have a question to ask and a suggestion to make. The question arises from the wording in the explanatory and financial memorandum on clause 4. I shall remind the Leader of the House of it. It says:
Provision is also made for Members to become entitled in certain circumstances to a full pension on retirement at a dissolution … with at least 20, instead of 25, years of set-Nice and at an age of 60 or over, instead of age 62.>
What do the words "in certain circumstances" mean? I should have thought that the circumstances were already fully spelled out in the text. I should be most grateful if the Leader of the House or the Minister of State, Treasury would say whether anything is concealed in that phrase and let us know what those circumstances are.
My suggestion concerns an anomaly to which we shall have to return in Committee. It is close to, if not the same as, the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire) in his intervention. There will be Members who qualify in terms of service, having completed at least 20 years. but who nevertheless at the time of their exclusion from the House are under the age of 60. They might be just a few months short of 60. It would seem reasonable that when such a Member reaches the age of 60, he or she should become entitled, like others, to an unabated pension. As I understand it, under our present rules no unabated pension becomes available until that Member reaches the age of 65. That cannot be right, and I strongly hope that we can persuade the Government and the House to make the necessary change.
This is the fourth piece of Parliamentary pensions legislation that I recall the House being invited to pass since the Ministerial Salaries and Members' Pensions Act 1965. The original Act was followed by the Acts of 1972, 1978 and 1981. It is now being followed by what we hope will become the Act of 1984. We have not yet got parliamentary pensions right, but we are making progress. Some amendments on Friday might take us a step or two further forward. In that spirit, I accept the Bill receiving a Second Reading.

Mr. Edward du Cann: The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), speaking for the Opposition, made, in effect, two points, both of which I agree with. I thought that he put them wholly admirably. His first was to give a welcome to the tabling of the measure. As the first speaker from the Back Benches, I am glad to accord with him exactly in that respect. As he said in his last few words, this is the fourth pensions measure affecting Members of Parliament with which the House has had to deal during the last 20 years. It follows from that that the previous measures fell far short of perfection. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that we have been excessively modest in our own interests in making proper pension provision for our fellows. There it is. We have advanced slowly. Perhaps, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, that is the best way. We have to hold a difficult balance and set an example.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney also talked about the context in which we should consider the matter. At the beginning of his speech he went out of his way, rightly, to pay a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I heartily join in that tribute. Obviously, before a measure of this kind is produced discussions must take place. A number of us have been involved in those discussions and all of us who have been involved, directly and indirectly, have appreciated the unfailing courtesy and trouble that my right hon. Friend has always taken to do his best to listen to and accommodate every point of view. It is particularly appreciated that he produced an explanatory leaflet for every Member and, by no means least, that we are having this debate in prime time. I think that this is the first occasion since I have been a Member of the House, almost 30 years, that we have debated a matter affecting Members so directly at a convenient hour.
We have had the good fortune to have a very pleasant atmosphere in which to discuss the matter, but the factual reality is less attractive. As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said, we are discussing this measure at a time when Members of Parliament are in receipt of lower salaries than the Top Salaries Review Body has recommended. The measure will also involve us in contributions greater than recommended. Last, but by no means least, Members of Parliament will, as a result, be in receipt of lower pensions than they might perhaps have expected.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House used a phrase, quoted again by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, which struck us all forcefully when he referred to the carelessness with which sometimes, in an effort to court easy popularity, matters affecting the service of Members are referred to by the popular press. The reality is that Members of Parliament have been underpaid for very many years. It is worth while having a general look at the position of Members of Parliament in that respect.
The remuneration of Members of Parliament is, comparatively speaking, a new affair. It is true, as one of the fact sheets now available points out, that Members were paid for 400 years between the 13th and the 17th centuries. But then it was only after considerable pressure and the debate of, I think, no fewer than six motions that some sort of payment was arranged in 1911, and a very modest payment it was. Certainly it bore no relation to the degree of service given by Members of Parliament, nor to the devotion that they show. Still less — this is increasingly true—it bore no relation to the work load which they experienced.
The pay of Members of Parliament is by no means remuneration in the ordinary sense of that word. It is not recompense, nor is it a salary by comparison with what people accepting substantial responsibilities might achieve outside the House of Commons. It is simply an allowance to enable men and women to come here who otherwise might be debarred from giving service to the nation.
Parliament has sought to open the door to all those who wish to give service to the state. This is a poor profession to practise, but it is at the same time a most honourable calling.
Members of Parliament are certainly poorly paid by comparison with other countries, as the House allowed me

to point out in a speech some time ago. Three years ago the House magazine published a list of salaries for Members of Parliament in Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, France and the Netherlands, among others. Of the nine nations quoted, two pay less, two pay the same and four pay more. By comparison with some nations within and outside the European Community, British Members of Parliament are very badly paid.
Perhaps it is right that there should be an element of sacrifice. Certainly on three occasions when the Top Salaries Review Body has reported it has been thought right for Members here to draw less than the amount recommended. That still applies in the case of the latest report from the Plowden committee, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney pointed out. Therefore, this is far from any kind of exercise for Members of Parliament to feather their own nests. This is a simple adjustment in an endeavour to improve the pension position of Members beyond the unsatisfactory state in which it has been hitherto.
The principle, then, is accepted, and we all rejoice in that. In regard to its execution, it is possible to argue that we might have gone, not merely further, but very considerably further. During the debate in July last—late at night, when my right hon. Friend was inevitably obliged to make a very short speech of introduction—a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends thought that the proposal to change the rate of accrual from one sixtieth to one fiftieth would be back-dated to include every serving Member of the House. I have read carefully the words of my right hon. Friend, and he obviously had no intention of misleading anyone. He referred specifically to Plowden and what Plowden had recommended. Plowden did not recommend back-dating. However, a substantial number of hon. Members thought that back-dating would come. I am sorry that it has not come. None the less, the proposal in lieu—an opportunity for purchase—goes a long way to alleviate any complaint that there might have been about that matter.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney referred to the rate of accrual. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said, we are moving from sixtieths to fiftieths. The statistics adduced by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney about ordinary length of service and so on, with which we are all familiar, are enormously impressive. Undoubtedly the move from sixtieths to fiftieths is to be welcomed. My right hon. Friend has made the point that that is what the House voted for in July last. I remind the House that on more than one occasion we have also voted for fortieths. It is a great pity that the command of the House in votes in the past has not been followed on this occasion. We have missed an opportunity. As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said, it is inevitable that we shall have to return to this matter sooner or later.
Thinking more about these matters, I must say that this is a reflection of our failure to get as permanent a settlement as possible, whether one speaks of pay or pensions. Of the 20 reports published by the Top Salaries Review Body over the years, no fewer than 11 have been concerned with the remuneration of Members of Parliament. In the last Parliament alone we had no fewer than six debates on the subject. This is the second such debate in the new Parliament. We should not need to be embarrassed by constantly having to refer to these matters.
I feel a little guilty about the debate today, because an amendment in my name raised the rate of contribution to 9 per cent. I thought it right that we should set an example in terms of contribution. I thought that hon. Members should show that they understood that pensions had to be paid for and be willing to make a comparatively high contribution. It is a great privilege to have an index-linked pension. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, is right to point out that the contribution rate in the private sector is usually about 5 per cent.
The House agreed by a majority of about 5 per cent. of those who voted that we should accept that responsibility. It goes far beyond that which Plowden proposed. The pension fund is extremely rich in cash in the sense that it is well funded. It is unreasonable that the Treasury has been allowed to exercise so strong an influence over decisions on the fortieths principle.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney was right to mention those who serve in the judiciary, the armed forces, the police and fire services and other categories. The argument against the introduction of fortieths for Members of Parliament has been that it would set an undesirable precedent. That precedent already exists. I cannot believe that anyone would be the least influenced by this extraordinary additional self-sacrifice by hon. Members.
I regret that we have not tried to work out a permanent settlement. However, all progress is welcome. The nine detailed matters in the Bill represent a substantial move forward and, most important, will remove from the public gaze one or two unhappy cases which received publicity after the last election. The movement from sixtieths to fiftieths and the arrangements for purchase are welcome. I thank and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on his consistent helpfulness.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: The Leader of the House was kind enough to pay tribute to the trustees of the parliamentary pension fund, of which I am one. The chairman of the trustees, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) is away with a parliamentary delegation, otherwise he would certainly have wanted to participate in the debate. I thank the Leader of the House for the sympathetic way in which he responded to the points put to him by the trustees and to which, with one minor exception, he agreed. This is the only opportunity that we shall have for many years to put right the anomalies.
The trustees have a number of responsibilities. We have a responsibility to Government funds, a responsibility to ensure that our proposals are viable within financial limits, and thirdly, we have a responsibility to our fellow Members. We are appointed by the House to administer the fund on behalf of fellow Members. The trustees know most about the hardship cases. They have the painstaking and heartbreaking task of dealing with some of our colleagues' circumstances when they must leave the House. We must try to help them.
When we put our proposals to the Leader of the House, he knew that we were not being irresponsible. Many hon. Members might even think that we were far too modest, but we have to exercise a high degree of responsibility when asking for something for fellow Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal

Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) each dealt with clause 4. It contains an anomaly which the House must consider. I hope that the leader of the House will put it right at the end of the debate, so that we do not have to table amendments for consideration on Friday.
My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield referred to a gentleman who was an hon. Member of the House for nearly 29 years. He belonged to the Government party, but he was a personal friend of mine. He left the House because his constituency folded beneath him. He was not reselected for either of the two replacement constituencies. He was eight months short of his 62nd birthday, He had spent nearly 30 years in the House loyally serving his party, and at one time was a junior Minister. That man received not a penny in pension. It is a disgrace to the House that we should treat a former hon. Member in such a way.
That man's plight results not from any wickedness by the Government, but from the inflexible way in which the legislation was written. The trustees were powerless because of that inflexibility. That ex-Member had to be 62 years of age at the date of the dissolution of Parliament before he could qualify for a pension. Nothing could be done to help him. I regret that in clause 4 the Government are continuing that inflexibility. It will lead to headaches for the Leader of the House, whoever he is, and it will certainly lead to headaches for the trustees, because those involved come to us first.
Let us suppose that someone is an hon. Member of the House for 25 years, having been elected at 33 or 34 years of age. If for some reason he departs from the House at 58 or 59 years of age, he will receive not a penny in pension for six or seven years. He will have to wait until he is 65.
Another, older person may enter the House two Parliaments later and serve for 20 years. Because by then he will have reached the magic age of 60 at the date of dissolution, he will receive his full pension. That cannot be right. The anomaly cannot be defended and is intolerable. The Bill repeats the inflexibility syndrome, which must prick the conscience of the Leader of the House and all hon. Members.
We are discussing hon. Members with 20 years' service in the House, not parvenus who have come to the House looking for a pension. Some hon. Members get disillusioned and fed up with the House, but that happens long before 20 years are up. They get fed up at the end of their first Parliament or in the middle of their second. If an hon. Member has to leave the House before he is 60, he leaves because he has been forced out for some reason. Having served for 20 years, he would not willingly go. He would want to complete his term until he was about 65, as most of us would want to do.
Three reasons may cause an hon. Member to leave the House prematurely. The first is ill health. Although an hon. Member is covered and receives an income if he leaves because of ill health, the scheme is far from generous and I should like to see it improved. The formula for assessing the pension that he would obtain is complicated, but the position is covered.
The other two reasons are that he has not been reselected by his constituency party, or that he has been defeated at a general election. We faced a tide of defeats in the previous general election—this is not a party political point—and given the ebb and flow of politics


in this country, it will follow inevitably that that will happen in reverse. Conservative Members who have done no harm and have served their party and constituency loyally will suddenly find themselves out of work. They will have given the best years of their lives to serving the House and their constituents, not to serving themselves in their own professions. Indeed, many people are too old in their late fifties to return to their professions in this fast-moving world, even if the jobs were there. It is too late for them to go back and pick up the traces again.
All that I am asking of the Leader of the House—I hope that all hon. Members will echo this in their speeches — is to be flexible on clause 4 and to allow an hon. Member who retires below the age of 60 to receive at the age of 60—not before—the pension to which he would have been entitled after serving the House for 20 years. We are asking for a minor change. I hope that we can avoid adding amendments to the Amendment Paper in Committee and that the Leader of the House—he is not a Minister, but our leader, the leader of both sides of the House — can see the justice of the case that I am deploying, and especially the hideous anomalies that could result from leaving the Bill in its present form.
Hon. Members who leave the House in their late fifties do not go voluntarily, but leave because they must go. It would be criminal for us to repeat what we have done to an hon. Member in the past. This is the opportunity to put it right. Therefore, I plead with the Leader of the House not to leave the matter to be dealt with by later amendments tabled by the trustees or by Back Benchers. He has dealt with the trustees in an excellent way, and is so fair-minded that it would be a shame for us to differ on this very minor point. I hope that he will put the matter right when he winds up the debate.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I shall not detain the House for long. I welcome the Bill, which is a complex one, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said. I have one question about the provisions in clause 9 that I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to answer in Committee. Are the provisions under clause 9 such, or could they be extended to be such, as to enable an hon. Member who wished to do so to leave the lump sum payable on death to a charity rather than to an individual? Some hon. Members would prefer to do that. We should make that provision now, if it is possible.
Apart from that, I shall make only two general points. First, if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House were tempted to suggest that the provisions of the existing or amended Bill err on the side of generosity, it would be possible to defend that state of affairs as a justifiable compensation for any shortcomings in the terms upon which hon. Members serve.
Parliamentary pay has much improved in the past 20 years. I do not complain about that, but, equally, I do not suggest that we are overpaid; my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) made some comparisons on that score. Nor am I suggesting that we should be overpaid or be seen to be overpaid. I have been led to argue from time to time that we should be underpaid, and be seen to be underpaid — not excessively, but perceptibly. I believe that hon. Members would be able to set for themselves the margin that perception represents.
It must be open to hon. Members to show, by our act in volunteering to come to the House, that we are not here for the money. There must be an element of perceptible service in our seeking to be elected. Inevitably, that must transfer to the terms that we undertake to accept. The same goes for Ministers. Neither their remuneration, nor the gap between their remuneration and the salary of an ordinary Back Bencher, should be allowed to reach a level at which they might be tempted to accept or retain office because they could not afford not to do so. That is another factor to bear in mind when we consider these difficult questions of parliamentary pay.
My second point is that I hope we shall finish dealing soon with these and other financial ramifications of our terms and conditions of service. It is right that hon. Members should take decisions on these matters. It is wrong for us to shuffle our responsibility on to a third party by using an apparently anodyne formula. If we do not take decisions in the House about ourselves, we forfeit the right to take them for anybody else. If we cannot bring ourselves to answer for setting our own pay levels, it is difficult to see how we can take to ourselves the right to set the pay of other servants of the state.
It is wrong that we should, albeit inadvertently, appear to be obsessed with such matters. It did Parliament no good when, last summer, we spent so much time and energy as a newly-elected Parliament on debating our salaries. Perhaps I carry my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton with me in saying that it does no good to his office as chairman of the 1922 Committee, or to that of the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, of Liberal Chief Whip or even of the Leader of the House, if the holders of those offices are preoccupied with what are virtually the functions of a shop steward or trade union negotiator. There are more important, and more political, matters that should have a prior claim upon their time.
I was, correspondingly, disappointed to hear the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) say, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton echo, the feeling that we do not have the matter right yet, and that we must return to it. I do not think that the Bill should pass its Second Reading while we are in that frame of mind.
Just as the outgoing Parliament ought to lay down the salaries to be paid to its successors in the new Parliament and to let the answerability go with that, so our objectives should be to set up, at the fourth attempt, a system to determine the conditions of our parliamentary pensions that will stand the test of time. Having done that, we should resolve to leave the matter alone and to think about matters that are more important to the people whom we represent.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Liberal Members welcome the fact that changes in the pension arrangements of Members of Parliament require a Bill, fully debated at each stage of its passage through Parliament. We welcome likewise the fact that the Leader of the House initiated discussions on these matters, in good time and in an admirable spirit, not simply through the usual two party channels, but with the all-party trustees of the parliamentary pension fund. Tribute has already been paid to the value of those pre-legislative discussions. In my short period as a trustee, I have believed—and still do


—that a substantial overlap exists between the public interest and the perfectly proper interest of Members of Parliament to ensure fair play for themselves.
The public interest has been recognised for centuries in the fairly formidable apparatus of law for protecting free speech and free votes in the House. It is important that, as far as possible, we should keep that apparatus up to date, and that includes financial considerations. There must not be any serious risk of an hon. Member feeling inhibited in his freedom of speech or vote by the fact that his family, or he himself, may suffer hardship as a result of losing his membership of the House. It is important that Members of Parliament should be provided with adequate retirement benefits so that they are not inhibited in that way. The public interest benefits by such a measure.
The Bill takes some account—although not enough—of two current trends. I refer first to the increasing specialisation in jobs outside the House. Most hon. Members would have to seek such jobs on losing their seats. I refer, secondly, to the degree of current and rapidly advancing knowledge which most of those jobs require. It is a very lucky hon. Member who can attend to the business of the House and constituents, and at the same time keep abreast of rapid advances in the subject of his previous career. Indeed, it requires super powers to be able to do that for years on end.
Therefore, the Top Salaries Review Body was right to point out the uniqueness of a parliamentary career and the great difficulties encountered—which most of us have sadly observed — when middle-aged colleagues who have lost their seats have to try to resume work outside the House. I am glad that the Bill takes some additional account of that. Furthermore, the House is becoming a source of increasing preoccupation for most hon. Members, because of the ever-growing work load, the extension of Committees, and so on. We do not grumble about that, but it is a fact of life that must be taken into consideration.
I do not claim to have done any research on spouses but although the spouses of hon. Members may still manage to work, they are bound to have rather reduced opportunities of earning money for the family treasure chest because of family duties in the Member of Parliament's absence and, often, involvement with constituents. That should also be taken into account when assessing the uniqueness of the job.
Thus, I welcome the Bill on those counts, although I agree with the comment made on both sides of the House that it is still far from adequate in all respects. The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) made the point well when it comes to the Bill providing a clear improvement for those who reach a fairly advanced age and do not wish to continue into a further Parliament, but whose pensions could be jeopardised by retiring before the age of 65. Of course the Leader of the House must be right to say that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and that wherever it is drawn some people are bound to be on the winning and some on the losing side, but that admirable and incontestable precept does not justify drawing a line at a point where the distinction between the two classes of hon. Member is most painful and unfair.
The Leader of the House knows very well that in taxation law and many quota arrangements passed by the House there is the principle of marginal relief. The House establishes a benchmark—in this case, 60 years of age and 20 years service—but instead of making that a total

cut-of point it arranges for some flexible reduction of benefits down the scale to a further point, possibly to the age of 58, 56 or thereabouts. It is perfectly possible to establish the benchmark which the Leader of the House wants, and which is broadly justified, of 20 years' service and 60 years of age, but still to allow marginal relief down to a somewhat lower age in order to deal with the example which the right hon. Member for Halton gave, which was entirely valid. If we stick solely to the Bill's benchmark, without any flexibility or relief at the margin, we shall ultimately face some appalling anomalies. The House will then be shocked at the injustice done to some retiring hon. Member, and we shall have this whole debate all over again.
The Leader of the House has already been asked to give thought to the issue before replying to the debate, and I hope that he will also give some thought to the possibility of flexibility along the lines of the marginal relief embodied in many Acts. Subject to that, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I wish to give the Bill a fair wind, as a measure that represents a considerable advance.

Mr. David Crouch: I, too, thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for introducing a measure that is an advance on what we already have, and is certainly overdue. However, in a short speech I wish to refer solely to the question of the "accrual rate" or "the appropriate fraction", as it is described in the Bill, and to consider what we thought we decided on that night and early morning of 19 and 20 July.
Pensions for Members of Parliament are a House of Commons matter. I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House misled the House then. However, I believe that the House was collectively misled by what we decided that night. We did not vote on the Question. The House was unanimous. At about 4.12 am there was no Division, as the House resolved unanimously to accept the recommendations of the Plowden report on pensions for Members of Parliament. That is what happened on 20 July, although as the debate on 19 July ran into the next day, the House calls it 19 July. It is rather a burden to have to lift up this vast Hansard in order to quote from it. Some years ago I complained, but I now appreciate what a wearisome business it is to lift it up in order to quote from it. However, I wish to refer to what we considered in the early hours of that morning.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House put before us the various resolutions that we had to consider. The last but one was No. 9 which said:
That this House takes note of the Twentieth Report of the Review Body on Top Salaries (C'mnd. 8881) and agrees with the recommendations contained in that Report with respect to the pensions of Members of this House, being recommendations (v) to (x) set out in paragraph 226 of Volume 1 of that Report.
I now want to draw the attention of the House to the recommendation referred to there which the House was considering and on which it might have voted that night just under a year ago. The first paragraph, that I have referred to as sections (v) to (x) is headed "Pensions and severance pay (Chapter 3)". It says:
(v) The pension accrual rate for MPs should be set at one fiftieth of pensionable salary as at present defined for each year of pensionable service. (Paragraph 65)
That is the reference to the recommendation—not the conclusion—in the report.
Let me take the House back to the recommendation on page 20 of the report which we were considering, on which we might have voted and which we resolved that night. It said:
We recommend that the pension accrual rate for MPs should in future be set at one fiftieth of pensionable salary as at present defined for each year of pensionable service.
Members of Parliament must equip themselves with as much knowledge as they can when they come into the Chamber to take part in a debate. What I have read to the House this afternoon makes it clear that we were thinking of one fiftieth as the fraction—not one fiftieth applied to just some years of our service but one fiftieth of the years to be reckoned with. I heard no one that night who thought that we would apply one fiftieth only from the date when the resolution was made in July last year.
I do not want to mislead the House. The Plowden report did not recommend retrospection. It said that retrospection was not thought to be appropriate. But that was not in the conclusion. It was not what we were considering. The conclusion was clear to any hon. Member who might ultimately have to go into the Lobby to vote. It was exactly as I have set out—that the new fraction would be one fiftieth. That was what we eventually decided upon that morning.
Let me take the House back again to something that the Lord Privy Seal said in guiding us through those complicated debates on a series of resolutions that night. In his speech covering a variety of resolutions, my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said:
Turning to pensions, the review body recommends, and the Government accept, that the pension accrual rate for Members should in future be set at one fiftieth rather than one sixtieth of pensionable salary. This is a long sought change. Members cannot normally be expected to have had a full working parliamentary life of 40 years. The review body also recommends that the pension contribution for Members should be increased.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) has touched on how we dealt with that.
On the one hand we were prepared to raise the contribution from 6 per cent. of salary to 9 per cent., and we voted on it. A majority of the House agreed to accept the amendent put forward by my right hon. Friend that that figure should be increased to 9 per cent. We agreed to make that extra contribution. We never thought that we would not get the contribution. We thought that the Government were saying to us through the words of the Lord Privy Seal that night that the Government accepted that the new fraction in future should be one fiftieth rather than one sixtieth.
The House started voting that morning at 2.47 am. Shortly after 4 am the main question, as amended, was put and agreed to. Let me make it quite clear what we decided. The Official Report says:
"Question accordingly agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
The House did not divide.
"Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Twentieth Report of the Review Body on Top Salaries (Cmnd. 8881) and agrees with the recommendations contained in that Report with respect to the pensions of Members of this House, being recommendations (v)"—
which I have already quoted—

to (x) set out in paragraph 226 of Volume 1 of that Report, except that, in recommendation (ix), the appropriate pension contribution rate should be 9 per cent. of salary.'"—[Official Report, 19 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 270–351]
There is a little reference there to the change of contribution—the money that we would have to pay being increased from 6 per cent. to 9 per cent. There is no reference to the fact that the fiftieth was to apply only from that month onwards and not to the previous reckonable number of years.
I do not think that we were misled. We all understood clearly that in future we could calculate the pension on one fiftieth and on no other figure. At no stage in any recommendation, in any part of the Plowden report or in what was said in the debates on pensions did a dispute arise about whether it might be one fiftieth from now on rather than one fiftieth for all the years of one's service.
This is not a court of law. It is the high court of Parliament. If it were a court of law and if I were a lawyer, which I am not, I would say that I rest my case there. I am confident that no jury could find other than for me.

Mr. Hugh Brown: There is a lot in what has just been said by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) with which I would agree. The debate on 19 July 1983 on our terms and conditions, was not one of the best debates in the House. On reflection, it would be wholly unreasonable to think that the Government ever had anything in their minds so generous as to back date one fiftieth to all the years of reckonable service. Nevertheless, the hon. Member is right. Many of us did think that it was one fiftieth for every year. However, that is not the burden of my remarks.
This is one of those unusual subjects when no one needs to declare an interest because we all have an interest. Therefore, we have to appreciate that all Back Benchers are equal. I am a capable, competent Back Bencher but I do not pretend to match what I imagine is the influence of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) as the chairman of the 1922 Committee. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) seemed to cast doubt on whether the chairman of an important Back-Bench Committee should be a shop steward—I hope that that is not a vulgar expression in the House. Nevertheless, it means that the rest of us who are arguing some of the points do not have the same optimism about persuading the Government to make further improvements.
I am always encouraged, having been a member of the Select Committee on Members' Salaries three years ago under the Chairmanship of the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), by one sentence of that Committee's report which to me summed it all up. It said:
The work of a Member of Parliament is unique.
Perhaps some people outside the House believe that we think that we are unique just because we have rather an unusual job. My point is that it is unique in many respects, but it is unique in one fundamental respect in that there are no two constituencies alike and no two Members of Parliament alike. There is no greater contrast between constituencies than between my constituency, in which almost 100 per cent. of houses are council owned, albeit 100 or 200 have been sold, and the more salubrious constituencies, such as Taunton, Woking or Shropshire, North. I do not say that enviously. It is merely a way of


emphasising that the workloads in constituencies may be heavy or light. I am grateful for my constituents, because they tend not to write to me about protests on the culling of seals or other esoteric subjects.
We should remind ourselves early in this debate that the Top Salaries Review Body recommended a year ago that our salary should be £19,000 a year. We cannot divorce salaries from pensions, because pensions are calculated on the salary rate. We are now a long way from that £19,000 a year. I hope that the press and others who follow our proceedings will note that Members of Parliament do not receive anything like the salary recommended by that outside review body, although the Government accepted some of its recommendations in other respects.
We should always remind ourselves of certain aspects of the problem. We recognise the general unwillingness of all Governments to go anywhere near accepting certain recommendations. This is not a party political point. I confess that the Labour party has not been as good in many respects as the Government, and I believe that everyone accepts that point. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) drew attention to the fact that it is no wonder that we need to keep returning to subjects such as this, because we never seem to make a satisfactory decision in the first place. That stems from our reluctance to do the right thing, or from fear or apprehension about what the public may think.
I am delighted that at least on this occasion the Government have accepted some of the review body's principles, such as that on the accrual rate of one fiftieth of final salary per year of reckonable service, although I believe that we could go further. The principles of a full pension on retirement after 20 years' service and at the age of 60 are big advances, despite the anomaly to which reference has been made, and the Government should be given due credit. I hope that it is not embarrassing to give credit to the Leader of the House. I doubt that authority has been given to accept any amendment that will require more money, but that is the right hon. Gentleman's problem. I believe that we all recognise the limitations under which the right hon. Gentleman is working, however generous he may wish to be.
It is less than 20 years since Members of Parliament received a pension as of right. As a former civil servant, I can never understand why for all these years we have allowed ourselves—both parties are to blame—to accept advice from civil servants who have well-established rights to a pension at 60, as a rule on half pay, as well as a lump sum of a year and a half's salary. I do not say that enviously; I am happy to have had the opportunity to be a Member of Parliament. I can never accept the argument that I should be willing to agree to a pension that is less favourable in its conditions than the pension applying to those who advise the Government. I hope that I have not sounded uncharitable in the way that I have put that point.
Clause 4—this may be one of the touches of humour of the Leader of the House—is one of the main clauses that all hon. Members support. I believe that the principles of a full pension at 60 years and after 20 years' service are an improvement, and we should accept them.
We need to look at the machinery that the House has for examining these problems. As the Leader of the House knows, some right hon. and hon. Members are experts in this matter. Some are trustees or have been chairmen of the 1922 Committee or of the parliamentary Labour party. A host of hon. Members have had to acquire a certain

expertise because of their position. We do not need to appoint a welfare rights officer, but, if we go further down this road, we shall expect too much of the staff in the Fees Office in explaining some of the measures that we have passed. Complications will arise, especially with pensions.
Is there any reason why there should not be synchronisation of the dates for allowances and salaries with the taxation year? For the life of me, I cannot understand—I speak as a former civil servant seeking to get everything into a nice tidy package—why we should not ultimately aim to make life easier for everyone by synchronising the tax year with the dates for salaries and allowances.
I must declare an interest in the following matter, although it is probably too late. I cannot understand why we should accept a so-called severance grant, yet cannot accept a lump sum on retirement, which sounds as though it is an offence of affluence. That matter needs examination, because an age bar has been imposed. I do not agree with the Leader of the House that 65 is the accepted age of retirement. Society has moved on, and I see no reason why we should not aim for a pension at 60, even with a lump sum on retirement. I have referred to the comparison with Civil Service conditions, and I believe that it is not unreasonable that hon. Members should move towards a 60 years age pension. I do not say that because it will provide a way of looking after ourselves. I believe that the idea would be acceptable, even though we might have to pay more.
Hon. Members have referred to the vexed question of Members of Parliament discussing their affairs. In the 20 years since I became a Member of Parliament, Governments have grappled with a variety of incomes policies. Some Governments denied that they had an incomes policy, but everyone knows that there is such a policy, however unofficially or informally Governments have implemented it.
No matter what so-called sacrifices the House of Commons makes—this point sticks out a mile—if we were prepared to accept a salary increase of 5 per cent., not a body outside would take a bit of notice of that example. We must have the courage to do what we think is right and fair in all circumstances. I like to think that hon. Members can do so. I support the Bill. As other hon. Members have said, it is an improvement, but further improvements can be made. I hope that the Leader of the House will accept the desire of hon. Members to make those improvements as quickly as possible.

Mr. Roger Freeman: When I listened to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), I found myself in the unusual position of agreeing with his arguments and admiring the clarity with which he advanced them. He spoke of his preference for moving from fiftieths to fortieths but he did not discuss the cost implications of that move. Would he accept that the contribution rate for Members should rise from 9 per cent. to perhaps 15 per cent? I think that 15 per cent. would be implied if we moved to a much more generous scheme that was based on fortieths. When we talk about pension benefits, it is important always to remember the costs that are borne both by Members and by the Government.
I welcome the Bill, but I believe that a slightly greater justification is required for moving to what in my


judgment is almost a gold-plated pension scheme. It is an extremely generous scheme. It is indexed for pensions in payment and for deferred pensions for those Members who leave the House and who have not reached the age of 60 years and for those who do not opt to take an actuarialy reduced pension between the ages of 50 and 60. The deferred pension is linked to the retail price index and that is an extremely generous benefit.
The generosity of the scheme is justified by the fact that parliamentary pay is not entirely in line with what has been recommended. We have funked that issue and, almost by sleight of hand, we have introduced a generous pension scheme. Perhaps this has been done on the assumption that the outside world will not understand fully the nature of the benefits. Perhaps we have also been slightly generous in respect of parliamentay allowances. As a new Member, I am disappointed that the House has funked the central issue of parliamentary pay and I hope that it will return to it at a later stage.
I shall seek clarification on four issues and I believe that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able better to justify the scheme by responding to them. The new proposed scheme is indexed and is linked to the retail price index for pensions in payment and deferred pensions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced yesterday that he would introduce a Bill to index deferred pensions up to a maximum of 5 per cent. per annum. That measure will not be as generous as the pension scheme that Members already enjoy.
It is difficult to calculate the true cost of a fully indexed pension scheme but my right hon. Friend talked about a cost of 22 per cent. per annum with 40 per cent. of the cost being borne by Members and 60 per cent. by the Exchequer. The costing of a pension scheme depends entirely upon the rate of inflation that is assumed. In my opinion, 22 per cent. of a pensionable salary is probably an underestimate of the true cost of the benefit of a fully indexed pension scheme.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred to the police force when talking about fiftieths for each year of pensionable service. Is the proportion that is paid by police officers for their pension scheme broadly equivalent to the 40 per cent. of total cost that Members are being asked to pay in this scheme?
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) talked about the ability of Members to buy extra pension rights for themselves. It is fair for a new Member to ask a much more senior Member who will pay for the retrospective rights. The concession that new Members are making for more senior Members is considerable. We are being asked to accept 40 per cent. with full tax relief as the cost of buying prior years. That means that new Members and taxpayers generally will pay the other 60 per cent. That is an extraordinarily generous provision which was not envisaged in the Plowden report.
In the second volume of the Plowden report at page 278 the consultants recommended that in addition each Member should be given the opportunity to negotiate an individual additional voluntary contribution contract with an insurance company. The Bill is silent on that issue. It is important that my right hon. Friend takes on board that those who join this place and who have had prior employment outside and prior pensionable service would find it easier to participate in an AVC scheme in which

they could contribute up to 15 per cent. of their parliamentary pay, which would be the 9 per cent. already paid compulsorily and an additional 6 per cent. if they wished to pay it. If they have only 15 or 20 years in which to provide themselves with a retirement pension, they may have to make additional voluntary contributions to acquire a satisfactory pension.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) asked whether 65 should be considered a normal retirement age and discussed an age limit of 60 for taking the full pension earned after 20 years of service and the age of 50 for taking an actuarially reduced pension. All those specific ages are much in line with the best of private practice and they are entirely acceptable. Hon. Members will be aware that an individual is not allowed to have a pension that is greater than two-thirds of his final pensionable salary and that that fraction is reduced if he retires before the normal retirement date. That is an Inland Revenue rule and it has nothing to do with the Plowden report. The Inland Revenue rules can and do bite, and that is an issue that I shall raise at a more appropriate time.
I shall quote a paragraph from a letter which I received from a company of leading pension consultants. Having read the Bill, the group pensions executive wrote:
Could you imagine any company in the private sector at this time increasing the accrual rate from 1/60ths to 1/50ths, allowing past service to be purchased at a 60 per cent discount by the member and allowing added years to be purchased without reference to future inflation? The saving grace is that the country does not reward its MPs at a satisfactory level".
This may be a generous scheme, but I shall vote for it. I shall do so almost in sorrow because we have not solved properly the problem of parliamentary pay.

Mr. Michael McGuire: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) was right when he said that when we concluded our debate on this issue on 20 July and left the House in the early hours of the morning we had the feeling that we would make a considerable contribution to our pension scheme—9 per cent. on a reduced salary—and that the scheme would be based on fiftieths. When I alerted one or two Members by explaining that that was not the position, they said, "You are wrong, Michael. We have passed it." I do not want to accuse the Leader of the House of sharp practice because I want his sympathy and attention, which I know I shall get. He was not guilty of sharp practice, but we were guilty of negligence. We made an assumption and we did not want to focus attention on fiftieths. We kept quiet, but the general feeling was, "Lads we have done it but we shall pay a bob or two extra." If there was any negligence, we were at fault for not probing the proposals.
The hon. Member for Canterbury has told us that he is not a lawyer—nor am I—but having read the report of the debate that took place on 20 July he would not think, if he were a lawyer, that it would take much to persuade a jury that the fiftieths proposal had been accepted and that it was to take effect retrospectively. Lawyers would have a field day in determining this issue and it is possible that at the end of the day their determination would not be as conclusive as the right hon. Gentleman and I would wish. That is water under the bridge.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) mentioned shop stewards, and seemed not to like the idea of the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party and the chairman of the 1922 Committee acting, as we say,


through the usual channels and being shop stewards. We have made considerable improvements because we have the usual channels and shop stewards. I remember well the day when the late Charlie Pannell, who later became Lord Pannell, and whom we all remember as an effective shop steward, said how daft we were as Members of Parliament. The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) may be interested to know that, when I came into the House, one lost about a month's salary at election time, and, if one lost one's seat, one went out on one's ear. Charlie Pannell was able to persuade the House that there should be a three-month redundancy scheme when a Member lost his seat, and the House has built on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) observed that we take advice from civil servants—the Government seem to take the advice that suits them, to which I will come later—who have much better conditions of service, and that we should do away with that. As my hon. Friend said, we take advice from people who are well fixed.
I was disappointed—and this was touched on by the hon. Member for Canterbury—that there seems to be some picking and choosing. The case for not making the fiftieths retrospective rested on the fact that Plowden did not recommend it. I accept that. But Plowden recommended a salary of £19,000. It seems unfair to pick and choose in this way.
I deal next with the main point that I wish to raise. The Leader of the House will know that I wrote to him about an ex-parliamentary colleague of his who, like most Members, had done his service, as he saw it, to his party in the House and elsewhere. My right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes), in what I thought was a marvellous speech, outlined and highlighted this case and what could happen in future. This ex-parliamentary colleague of Conservative Members, after 29 years' service in the House, because of the inflexibility of the age at which one leaves the House at dissolution or on prorogation, did not qualify to receive his accrued pension as he was eight months' short. He had a choice of waiting until he was 65 and picking it up then, or surrendering in perpetuity 26·5 per cent.
As most hon. Members know, as well as being a Member of Parliament, I am a member of the Council of Europe where one has a chance to meet one's colleagues in other Parliaments. When one relates the story of an ex-Member of Parliament who has done 29 years' service but cannot qualify for a pension, they simply do not believe it.
I have written to the Leader of the House about this matter. I believe that we are in danger of perpetuating that inflexibility. The same system will exist with the substitution of 25 years' service linked to the age of 62, at which time a Member leaves the House.
I ask the Leader to look at this seriously and sympathetically. It will not cost any more money. If a Member aged 60 with 20 years' service leaves the House, he is entitled to his fully accrued pension. If he is aged 58 with 25 years' service, he will not be paid a greater amount. We do not ask that he be given a pension when he is aged 58, or that he takes retirement earlier than any other Member of Parliament. We say merely that it is wrong to penalise him, and to put him in the position of the ex-parliamentary colleague of Conservative Members whose case has been outlined. If the Bill goes through, a

Member in this position will have to wait longer so that the position will be made worse rather than being improved.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Halton said that this is not a matter in which it would be appropriate to table amendments. I urge the Leader of the House to look at this again. We ask not that a Member who leaves at 55 years of age be given the pension then, but merely that he be given the same benefits that a Member who leaves the House aged 60 is lucky enough to enjoy. He will have to wait until he is 60, which could be four, five or more years. It is a choice between a Member living in reasonable comfort and drawing a pension when he is 60 years of age, or a Member living in penury in some cases until he is 65. I do not believe that it is the wish of the House to make that kind of cackhanded change which will only make matters worse.
I hope that the Leader of the House or the Financial Secretary will be able to respond to my modest request.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: As a trustee of the pension fund, I wish to say a few words. They will indeed be a few words, because my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) has made it clear that, if the House does not complete Second Reading by seven o'clock, we will have no pensions.
In some walks of life, retirement is a matter of nice calculation, but in our profession it is not. Even if a Member decides to go at the end of a Parliament, he does not know when that will be, and he is very much at the mercy of events outside the House. I agree with the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), who said that as the salary goes up there is a certain pressure on Members of Parliament not to lose their seats. They cannot afford to do so because most of them are unemployable after they have been in the House for a certain time. Therefore, we must do more or less as we are told. This position can be mitigated considerably by a decent pension. If we have confidence, in that respect it will be to the good of all hon. Members.
The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) drew attention to the rigidity of the age of 60, and 20 years' service. I believe that one's age is not as important as one's service to the House. It must be borne in mind that the average length of service in the House is only 14 years, and most hon. Members never attain 20 years' service. Cases such as the one to which reference has been made—and all hon. Members know to whom that refers—are heart-rending and are a disgrace to the House.
I have two questions to ask the Minister. Clause 5 to some extent appears to override the conventions of the Revenue about the amounts that one may have on pension. Does that also underwrite the rule that, after one has reached the retirement age, one may not purchase any extra years? I declare an interest here in that I am more than 65 years of age, and I have been forbidden to buy any extra years. Is it the intention that that will continue after the orders under clause 5 and section 11 of the Parliamentary Pensions Act 1978 have been made?
On the question of hardship awards, parliamentary trustees have a right under section 4 of the Members' Fund Act 1948 to make special hardship awards. As I understand it, we are allowed to meet hardship awards of only £3,700 per year. That figure was fixed in 1948. I do not know what the equivalent value of £3,700 is today, but


it must be a considerable sum. I believe that the amount should be increased so that we may grant commensurate awards to our colleagues who fall on hard times.

Mr. Allen McKay: There is an anomaly in the Bill. As has been said, we ask that this proposal be accepted, because it will not cost any money. I hate talking about our own pensions and salaries. The position is eased because we will be paying 9 per cent. Because of that, we should also draw what is due. I seek to insert the word "reckonable" before the word "service".
A person entering the House at the age of 40 may spend 20 years here and make 20 years' contributions to the pension scheme. He could draw his full pension without any deductions. In addition, he could draw maximum severance pay. However, a person entering the House at 51, who spends nine years here may bring with him 20 to 30 years pension from his previous scheme. That person leaving the House at 60 will receive only half severance pay and must wait until he is 65 before he can draw his full pension. It is wrong that a person should bring in his contributions and not receive the same benefit as others.
The scheme would not cost anything because those involved would have already paid their contributions before entering the House. Rather than feeling obliged to table an amendment, I hope that the Leader of the House will recognise the wisdom of such a scheme and will insert the word "reckonable" before the word "service."

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I wish to declare an interest, even though we were told earlier that it was not necessary to do so as we are all interested parties.
I associate myself with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) in the cases that he outlined. I hope that they will be sympathetically considered. I do not know whether the trustees have discussed the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), but if they are prepared to accept transferred contributions from other superannuation schemes, surely they should allow the years of service during which an individual has contributed to count as service for the benefits of our pension scheme. If a person had not transferred those assets they would have been frozen and he might have been entitled to retire at 60. It is not fair that someone should bring in perhaps 14, 15 or 20 years contributions from another scheme and the trustees accept them, but then say that he will not be allowed the full benefits of our scheme. Under clause 4, someone could find himself with less than 20 years service in the House, but with many more years of contributions from a previous scheme.
I hope that it will not be necessary to table an amendment and that the Leader of the House will seriously consider the point. It would not be necessary to have any further income for the scheme, and I understand that only a few people would be involved. Surely the House, the right hon. Gentleman and the trustees believe that it would be fair that the transferred contributions should entitle a person to the benefits of the parliamentary scheme.

Mr. Alan Williams: I thank the Leader of the House for making available a small number of copies of the 1972 Act because without them it would be difficult to table amendments by Friday. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's positive attitude during recent months in our discussions on the difficult problems implicit in the Bill. I welcome the modifications that have been made.
I think that perhaps there has been an oversight, in that we have not taken the opportunity to ensure that our widows receive the same treatment as the widows of judges, whose capital sum and pension are based not on the actual salary but on the recommended salary. They, like us, do not receive the recommended salaries, but at least their widows are not penalised.
We especially welcome the decision on fiftieths. Obviously, we would have preferred fortieths. We are buying back and paying for that additional facility, which meets the objections raised by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), although I appreciate that it was a legitimate objection. We are paying back in the same proportion as we pay for our pensions generally. That is defensible and unchallengeable. It is made more unchallengeable by the fact that we are also paying 9 per cent. rather than 8 per cent., which was the figure recommended by Plowden. Although I do not think that we should pay 9 per cent., it means that, even before our additional contributions for the fiftieths, we are putting 12·5 per cent. a year more income into the fund than Plowden regarded as necessary. We are paying in several ways for the additional benefit, so we do not feel that we are in any way begging for the additional pension.
On Friday we shall seek clarification of one or two points and will table a couple of amendments. I shall try to leave the Minister as much time as possible to deal with the points raised in today's debate. If he can clarify some of the points, that will ease the position on Friday.
My colleagues want to be clear whether the 60–20 provision includes years that have been brought in, or whether it means only years actually served in the House. Does an hon. Member have to serve 20 years, or will someone who has brought in five years and served 15 qualify? We have drafted a provisional amendment to cover that point, but if we have misunderstood the position, clarification would avoid an unnecessary debate on Friday.
It is wrong to perpetuate the system whereby the facility—the 60–20 replacing the 62–25—is available only to hon. Members who have not been defeated at the election at which they qualify. An hon. Member who, on dissolution, decides not to stand again and has fulfilled the required 60–20 provision will qualify, but under the 1972 legislation an hon. Member with the 60–20 qualification, who stands and is defeated, for some inexplicable reason will not have the same pension as his colleague who left Parliament at the same time. That is indefensible and I shall seek to amend that in Committee.
Another problem has been highlighted by hon. Members on both sides of the House. If the Leader of the House is not careful, he will perpetuate what we all know as the Mawby anomaly by insisting that the 60–20 provision applies at the dissolution of Parliament. That really does not stand up to examination. It will create


injustices rather that solve them. It will mean that an hon. Member aged 59½, who does not return to the House, has two alternatives.
If he draws no penson until he is 65, compared with a colleague a day or two over 60, he will lose five years, which at the minumum will be equivalent to two years' full salary. For someone who has served 30 years it will mean a loss of three years' full salary. The alternative is that he has to accept an abated pension, although he is only a matter of months adrift in terms of his birthday. He will have the necessary age, and will have served the necessary 20 years, but his misfortune is that he will have gone out of the House a couple of months too early. He will then have to accept an abatement, which will mean that instead of his full entitlement of, say, 20-years—if that was his service—he will receive less than 69 per cent. of that figure, not just until he is 65, but for the rest of his life. That is a massive and unjustifiable loss.
We have a few days in which to consider the representations made from both sides of the House. I do not expect the Treasury Minister to welcome all the amendments and to promise wholehearted support for them by Friday. Although we have moved the requirement back a couple of years, the anomaly is still there, and, if anything, the new provision will create even greater differences between one hon. Member and another. Therefore, I urge the Leader of the House and his hon. Friend to look at this before Friday.
I recognise that I am no great parliamentary draftsman and that whatever amendments I table may be suspect. I hope that by Friday, if the Government are willing to co-operate with us, they will also be willing to co-operate on the availability of the parliamentary draftsmen to ensure that whatever amendments are moved reach the statute book in the correct form.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): This has been a constructive and useful debate. The two main themes that have flowed through it are the welcome for the Bill from both sides of the House and well-deserved tributes to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who has taken an infinite amount of trouble to discuss this in all parts of the House and to seek the greatest possible consensus. Speaking as a Treasury Minister, I can say that his arguments were persuasive for the Treasury and this is reflected in the provisions of the Bill, which, as has been acknowledged, meet many of the points that have arisen during informal discussions. I shall try to reply to some of the points that have been made, and I or my right hon. Friend will answer in writing questions that remain unanswered at the end of my speech.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) asked particularly about the phraseology of clause 4 and the words, "in certain circumstances." This refers to the 60–20 provision applying only if the Member of Parliament concerned applies for his unabated pension to take advantage of the 60–20 provision before the close of the poll on election day, which means that he must make a fine judgment if he is not sure how he will fare. He is not allowed to wait to see whether he is elected and he must satisfy the trustees of the fund that he will not be standing again.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) wondered whether the precondition of making application before the result of the election was known is

reasonable and fair. It is the provision that now applies arid no change is being made by the Bill, except the change to 60–20 from 62–25. These preconditions are the same as they have been. However, I shall reflect on that point, and that will apply to all the points made in the debate.
The most important point that has been raised, first by the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes), who was supported by powerful speeches from both sides of the House, is about the rigidity of the 60–20 provision. It was acknowledged that the example that was highlighted at the last general election has been dealt with by the Bill. As we all know, the individual with 29 years' service who missed out by some eight months is covered by the Bill. That should be clearly established.

Mr. McGuire: There is nothing to stop a man with 29 years' service being missed out again.

Mr. Hayhoe: I understand that, and I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech and to others. I am fully apprised of the arguments. I repeat what my right hon. Friend said. The whole of the parliamentary pensions provision is based on a normal retiring age of 65. My right hon. Friend underlined that and made it clear, as it is important that we should not forget that when talking about these special provisions that should apply for those approaching retirement age when a dissolution is called. A reduction from age of 62 to 60 and from 25 to 20 years of service will be welcomed in the House. The suggestion that we should reduce the age below 60 in certain circumstances——

Mr. McGuire: No.

Mr. Hayhoe: As I understand it, the suggestion is that there should be flexibility about that so that someone with many years of service who has not yet reached the age of 60 at dissolution should not suffer in the same way as if we had not been making these provisions.
I think that I understand the point and we shall be examining what has been said in detail. In choosing the age of 60 we have to bear in mind that the normal retiring age is 65 and the probability is that a Parliament will last five years. The three figures of the normal retirement age of 65, a minimum age of 60, for which we are legislating, and the maximum life of a Parliament of five years make at least a logical framework.
I understand the points that have been made, and I make it clear that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has been listening carefully to the arguments. He is prepared to meet the trustees of the fund to discuss this matter urgently before Friday to see whether it will be possible to introduce some flexibility. The point made by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and the comparison with tax laws and whether it is marginal relief or transitional provisions is one of the points that should be taken into account.

Mr. Williams: Will the Minister appreciate that the three points do not run together? Two of them do—the 60–20 and the retirement age of 65—but the dissolution point is an irrelevancy. If the lion. Gentleman thinks that it is not, will he explain what it is that automatically makes the needs of a Member who has served 20 years but who is two months over 60 at the time of the dissolution more self-evident than those of a Member who happens to be two months under that age?

Mr. Hayhoe: As has been acknowledged in the debate, any line that has been drawn will produce anomalies on either side.

Mr. Williams: No.

Mr. Hayhoe: We may disagree about that, but in such pension provisions it is almost certain that, wherever a line is drawn — it was 62 and 25, which produced the anomalies that we are seeking to remedy — new anomalies can be thrown up. I have said that my right hon. Friend is prepared to discuss this with the trustees of the fund. I am sure that the House, understanding the way in which these matters work, will feel that that is a reasonable response to the points made in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) referred to the question of nomination under clause 9. I am advised that the change of the word "person" to "individual" excludes the nomination of the nominator from being other than an individual. Under the Interpretation Act 1973 "a person" includes a corporate and a main unincorporate body. We shall consider that point because we appreciate the possibility of a nomination being made not to an individual but perhaps to a charity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) adduced a detailed argument about what the House had or had not done in the early hours of the morning. He will recognise that the clauses towards the end of the report, from paragraph 226(v) onwards, from which he quoted are prefaced by the comment that they are a summary of the main recommendations. The words "in future" occur in the main recommendations, but not in the summary.
A more significant point about retrospection is in paragraph 66. The matter was considered carefully by Lord Plowden and his colleagues. Paragraph 66 of their report makes it clear that they do not believe that retrospection is justified. I am glad that the House gave a general welcome to the provisions which make it possible for those with previous service in the House which would otherwise be counted at the accrual rate of one sixtieth to change that to an accrual rate of one fiftieth by paying 40 per cent. of the cost, which is the proportion of the cost of the pension scheme implied by a 9 per cent. contribution. That seems to be a fair arrangement, and I am glad that it was welcomed and accepted as fair, by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney.
Comments were made about the possibility of an accrual rate of one fortieth. In a well-considered, fair and authoritative speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) said that if the accrual rate was changed there would be consequential changes in the contribution rate. That must be considered.

Mr. Shore: I would not confirm the Minister's arithmetic. Quite frankly, it is extraordinarily extravagant.

Mr. Hayhoe: I am happy to try to find an authoritative figure if it would be useful. However I believe that that moment has passed. We are now considering the provision, which has been generally accepted and which is in accordance with the resolution of the House, for the accrual rate to be one fiftieth.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) asked whether the over-65s would be able to buy added years. The answer is that they cannot in the normal

course of events, but that under the Bill they can make that transition for the years of past service from sixtieths accrual to fiftieths accrual by purchase.
Clause 5 does not override the Inland Revenue rules. It is important that in our own pension scheme we should seek to stay in harmony and in line with the Inland Revenue rules that apply to all other pension schemes for other people. Hon. Members will agree that it would be wrong for us to seek a privileged position for our pension scheme, which would not be available to other people.
The purpose of these changes is to get a balanced contribution, which takes into account the extra cost of indexation. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud asked whether we were satisfied that the costing was realistic. I assure him that it is according to the best information available. He asked whether the proportion of 40 per cent. was in line with the police scheme. It is broadly in line with the police scheme, but I hope that he would not hold me to one or two percentage points. I can find the precise figure for him if he wishes it. He also drew attention to the fact that as a result of the provisions new hon. Members would gain nothing like as much as older hon. Members with past service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud also asked about hardship cases. The trustees of the fund have been worried about such cases. In some circumstances they have been worried about the limit of £3,750. The provisions in the Bill will multiply that figure by a factor of 10. The trustees will have the authority—they must act properly, as I am sure that they will—to increase the sum up to £37,500.
Many other points were raised during the debate. It would be best for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and me to consider those points carefully. We shall discuss urgently with the trustees of the fund the most significant point that has emerged from the debate, which is the operation of the 60–20 provision. Having given the House those assurances, and having undertaken to reply in detail to other points, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Committee tomorrow.

PARLIAMENTARY PENSIONS ETC. BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Parliamentary Pensions etc. Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act;
(b) the payment into or out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable into or out of that Fund under section 30 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 or section 7(1)(b) of the European Assembly (Pay and Pensions) Act 1979; and
(c) the payment out of money provided by Parliament or out of the Consolidated Fund of grants under the Act to persons who have ceased to hold certain Ministerial or other offices.—[Mr.Douglas Hogg.]

Orders of the Day — Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

7 pm

Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment for an instruction in the name of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry) and the amendment thereto in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I believe that it will be for the convenience of the House to debate the Instruction and the amendment jointly with the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Dobson: This is the second time that I have had the privilege to introduce a GLC money Bill. On the last occasion, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) described my performance as one of my less provocative speeches. It was deliberately less provocative as I was trying to walk the tightrope between adequately making the case for the expenditure proposed by the GLC and ILEA and putting the case in such a way as to cause the least possible offence to the Conservative majority in the House. On this occasion, the instruction proposed by various Tory Back Benchers, which in fact seems to have been stimulated and provoked by the Government themselves, so undermines the purpose of the Bill that I should be hard put to provoke the Tories into doing anything more damaging than that which they already intend. I am thus relieved of one possible constraint on my remarks today.
Like my predecessors, the last time I introduced a similar Bill I spent a good deal of time describing the intricacies of capital financing in the capital city. On this occasion, however, I think that I can sum up my comments on the technicalities by saying that although in one way or another about £600 million is at stake, the bulk of that money is not in dispute because it is already committed in contracts that have been let and very little can be done about it. In many ways, therefore, that aspect is a mere technicality.
The matters that are much in dispute concern funding for new projects this year. The GLC wishes to spend £80 million on new projects to improve services for Londoners. The Government wish to cut that to £39 million. ILEA, elected by the people of inner London, wishes to spend £20 million on improving the schools and other education services in the centre of our capital city. The Government want to cut that to £16 million. In anticipating possible comments from the supporters of the wrecking instruction, I am led to suppose from their comments to the press that they will claim that they are simply trying to take a substantial part of the discretion in spending that money away from the GLC and ILEA and to make each individual project subject to Treasury scrutiny. There are two objections to that.
First, such a proposal covering such a large proportion of the GLC's and ILEA's projects for this year defeats the whole purpose of the annual money Bill because the general idea has been that there is a trade-off — the disbenefit of parliamentary scrutiny being, as it were,

countervailed by the benefit that the Treasury would not scrutinise the details of individual projects. The proposed instruction thus undermines the whole basis on which GLC money Bills have been prepared, presented and debated in the past.
The second objection is that, whatever the hon. Member for Southgate (Sir A. Berry) may say, it is clear that in practice the Treasury will permit very little indeed of the spending that the hon. Gentleman wishes it to decide. I say that with some confidence. In this case, it was not necessary for a letter to be leaked and to appear on the front page of the Daily Mirror to show the truth about what Ministers are doing behinds our backs. On this occasion we have a plain, straightforward letter from a Mr. Fletcher at the Department of the Environment to a Mr. Laidlow of the GLC, dated 4 May, stating that in advocating that the GLC should do as the hon. Member for Southgate wishes to make it do,
Ministers did not intend to create an expectation that the Treasury consent in whole or in part will necessarily be forthcoming. It would be released only if there were good cause for Ministers to change their view about the appropriate level of spending (for example, if an additional allocation were agreed for the Thames Barrier or if it became possible to offer extra resources to local authorities generally) or if the Council actually wished to on-lend to another local authority.
One is tempted to add the words:
or I will eat my hat",
because it is in the nature of the present Government that the chance of any of those eventualities being accepted is very small indeed. About the only thing that can be said for the present Government is that they pride themselves on their resolution and their unwillingness to change their mind, and, according to that letter, any Treasury commitment would involve Ministers changing their minds.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman said that he wished to anticipate some possible comments. If called, I intend to raise a point covered by GLC capital spending but not, I believe, by the Bill—the Lambeth sports centre. Will he tell us, on behalf of the GLC, what is the rationale behind that proposal?

Mr. Dobson: If the House gives me leave to reply to the debate, I shall try to deal with any individual matters that are raised. For the time being, I shall continue with the speech that I intended to make without prompting from Conservative Members.
In reality, we are talking about cuts. Londoners want to know why the Government wish to halve the GLC's capital expenditure this year 'when they apparently found expenditure of about £80 million on new capital projects last year perfectly acceptable. The Government did not try to block last year's Bill, and that did not bring economic ruin to the country, so why do they object to a similar provision for this year, given that the GLC and ILEA have not changed their priorities and that their spending programmes are on the same lines as those accepted by the Government last year?
Which services will suffer if the cuts are made? The building of new homes and the renovation of existing homes will certainly suffer. There will be no money for the borough councils to improve the rundown ex-GLC estates which in 1981 the then Secretary of State for the Environment, now Secretary of State for Defence, insisted that the GLC should hand over to the boroughs, although the boroughs had no wish to take them. When those


properties were handed over in June 1981 the then Secretary of State insisted on a 10-year programme to carry out all the necessary rehabilitation according to a 10-point standard of improvement, that the boroughs should start the improvement work at once and that money should be provided by the GLC to pay for the work.
It may be said that displays of hindsight are always nauseating, but Tory Members may be even more sickened to discover that, for once, I showed considerable foresight when I said of tenants on a rundown GLC estate in my area:
Those tenants want better transfer arrangements … They do not believe that the GLC will have the money to complete the work, and they are not sure that the money available will be spent on this estate. They are not sure that the necessary funds will be passed to Camden, and there is no protection for them during this transfer period."—[Official Report, 30 June 1981; Vol. 7, c. 738.]
That all turns out to be true, and it will be reinforced if the Conservatives get their way and the money is not made available by the GLC to the boroughs. Many boroughs are much worse off in that respect than is the borough of Camden, part of which I have the honour to represent.
There has been a massive increase in homelessness in London, but the cuts proposed by the Government will mean that new hostels for the homeless, which are desperately needed in London, will not be provided this year. Other projects, such as new community and neighbourhood centres, will also not go ahead, and capital projects for ethnic groups will not be helped.
Among other projects that may suffer are new job training schemes designed to improve the level of skill of Londoners who are at present, because of the Government's house-bound economic policies, out of work. I could give examples from all parts of our capital city.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Could the hon. Gentleman speed up?

Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) waits until the end of my speech, he will find that I refer to him.
I will take my examples from central London, which is the area with which I am most familiar. No doubt my hon. Friends from other parts of London will provide examples from their areas.
Among the schemes that will be at risk if the Government proposals are accepted is a £215,000 scheme for building new homes in Matthews yard in the constituency of City of London and Westminster, South. There is a £1,250,000 scheme for the replacement of Rowton hostels. There is £600,000 for the purchase of Gordon house road for the Heathview housing association in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), who cares so much about his constituents that he has not bothered to attend the debate. The Westminster Society for the Mentally Handicapped is seeking funding to replace urban programme funding cut off by the Government in the constituency of Westminster, North. That alternative funding is at risk. The purchase of a farm by the Paddington Farm Trust to give deprived children from that area access to the countryside is also at risk. The hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) is not here. Perhaps he is embarrassed, as I know that he supports that project.

Sir Anthony Berry: My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) is with a Select Committee in Hong Kong, with two hon. Members from the Opposition side. He is carrying out a parliamentary duty.

Mr. Dobson: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is in Hong Kong. When he gets back—if his hon. Friends get their way—he will find that the valuable farm trust project is unlikely to be financed by the GLC. I hope that he will not blame the GLC for that. Let us consider the consequences of a cut of £4 million in the Inner London education authority's budget for improvements this year. The programme to provide additional nursery classes in many parts of inner London will suffer desperately. Other straightforward improvements, such as the provision of new indoor lavatories for primary schools in place of the rotten, awful outdoor lavatories still to be found in many primary schools, will be lost if £4 million is cut. Plans to provide more play space for some schools which at present have very cramped playgrounds may also have to be abandoned.
ILEA's programme for introducing yet more computers in schools is also at risk. As other authorities and the Department of Education and Science have always acknowledged, ILEA has led the way in this field. The Department of Education and Science is demanding a greater emphasis on computing in schools, but the school computer programme will be at risk if the Conservatives succeed in cutting the funding.
Similarly, the cut may affect the provision of new science facilities intended by ILEA, in particular, to make it easier for girls to take up science. The Government claim to support that trend. They will provide every assistance short of help and money. Indeed, Government policy will be to hold up the provision of those facilities.
I do not want to detain the House by listing all the projects at risk in central London. I shall confine myself to the area with which I am most familiar. In Fulham, a nursery class at Queens Manor primary school is at risk. At Munster primary school, which I visited this morning, the provision of internal toilets is at risk. At St. Thomas Roman Catholic primary school, improved sanitation facilities are at risk. In Kensington, improved play space at St. Mary's Roman Catholic school and computers for Cardinal Vaughan and Sion Manning schools are at risk.
In Chelsea, the list is even longer. A new heating system for Ashburnham primary school is at risk. The Westway sports centre, which would provide an all-weather running track, is at risk. More play space for Christchurch Church of England primary school and computers for St. Thomas More Roman Catholic primary school are at risk.
Then there is the constituency of Westminster, North. North Westminster school, which is recognised all over London for its efforts to provide decent education for children from all ethnic minorities, may not now benefit from improvements costing £250,000. Improvements to Paddington rec—for Conservative Members who do not understand what that is, I should explain that I am referring to Paddington recreation ground — are at risk. The project technology area at Quinton Kynaston secondary school is at risk.
In the constituency of City of London and Westminster, South the additional toilets at the Pimlico music annexe may well not he built, and the energy conservation scheme in Pimlico school will probably not go forward.
The constituency of Hampstead and Highgate forms part of the borough that I have the honour to represent. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate—knighted if not benighted — may well have to explain to his constituents why he does not support the provision of funds for the provision of nursery classes at Fitzjohns, Kingsgate, and New End schools, and improved facilities for staff at Fleet primary school.
No doubt my hon. Friends will give other examples of what is at risk in their areas of London.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I know that the hon. Gentleman said that he would not try not to be offensive——

Mr. Dobson: Provocative.

Mr. Bottomley: All right, provocative. Will the hon. Gentleman now answer my question? The project of which I referred appeared to involve £25 million of discretionary spending by the GLC. Scrapping that project would have accounted for two thirds of the amount of money dealt with in the instruction, albeit under another budget head.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has prepared his speech and is not speaking off the cuff. Will he tell us which of the projects he personally regards as less important than the GLC's present policy of spending £3 million on propaganda campaigns in the national newspapers?

Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) does not understand by now the difference between revenue and capital spending, one can understand why the Tory party has brought his wife into the House to supplement the Bottomley contribution.
Londoners will ask why the cut is being proposed. There seems to be no rational explanation. The proposed spending levels are no higher than those of last year, and the Government made no objection to them.
The explanation is that the Government, led by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) are carrying on a vendetta against the GLC and ILEA. Not content with abolishing the GLC, they are now involved in the dubious process of abolishing the GLC elections in advance of the abolition of that body. If the protectors of the British constitution at the other end of the building cannot turn out to vote against the abolition of democratic elections, their excuse for existence has expired and they are living proof of their inadequacy.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that, bearing in mind the turnout achieved in another place last night, it is clear that the Government Whips in the other place had been grave robbing?

Mr. Dobson: Grave robbing is one stage further than what was suggested to me—that many Tory peers had been taken out of their glass cases and suits of armour. My source observed the decayed proceedings.
The Government seem to be adopting Henry Ford's idea of any colour as long as it is black with regard to local authority elections. They are telling us that we can have any political colour as long as it is blue and Tory, even if elections have to be done away with to achieve that result. Abolition of elections anticipates the abolition of the GLC.

What we are discussing also anticipates the abolition of the GLC. The Government are getting their nasty little hands on the GLC's money which the council uses to provide services that are vital to Londoners. The programme of spending that we are discussing is not frippery. Conservative Members obviously agree with that, as none of them are laughing. There are items of spending to which I would not give the highest priority, just as Conservative Members do not wholeheartedly endorse what the Government are doing. There are, however, one or two Conservative Members——

Mr. Tony Banks: They are toadies.

Mr. Dobson: The senior ones—the more advanced toadies—do not seem to be here this evening but some of them would probably justify every item of the Government's expenditure. The overall effort of the GLC and of the ILEA has been to protect and improve the living standards of the worst-off people in the GLC area or, for the ILEA, in inner London. I do not expect Tory Members to support those ideas because they believe in protecting and improving the living standards of the better-off at the expense of the worst-off. That is why their party exists. However, I have always believed in a responsible system of Government. I believe that elected representatives should be responsible and held to account for their actions. I therefore remind Tory Members who represent London constituencies, although I notice that their number has been augmented by hon. Members with no connection with London——

Mr. Peter Bottomley: They work here.

Mr. Dobson: Some of them do not work here tonight, or so it would appear. Tory Members from London are supposed to represent the people of London. Representation is a serious duty and function. If Conservative Members use their majority tonight. they will be cutting the money that will make possible vital improvements in the living standards of many of their constituents. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who seems to continue to wish to intervene, appears to have called upon his wife to join him in proposing measures that will ensure that the nursery class in St. Mary's Roman Catholic school in Eltham, the internal toilet improvements at Henwick primary school and that improved sanitation facilities at Wyborne primary school will not be provided. Presumably he is here tonight because he believes that it is right that such damage should be done to his constituents.
In view of the Government's majority, the Opposition. expect to lose tonight, but we intend to show the electors of London that Conservative Members had a choice. Their choice is between being vindictive to please the right hon. Member for Finchley and being sensible and being responsible to their electors. They will have the explaining to do. I might have some explaining to do at the end of the debate, should I be given the opportunity to reply to detailed points that have been raised.
Although I have been provocative, I should like Conservative Members to consider the history of our capital city and remember that the bulk of the improvements in living standards have sprung not from the interplay of market forces but from public provision of vital services. The interplay of market forces was not responsible for providing a decent and clean water supply,


a decent sewerage system, decent housing for working-class people at rents that they could afford, a decent education system that was gradually developed by the London Board of Education, then the London county council and now by the ILEA, or decent hospitals and a decent Health Service. All of these improvements came from the public provision of services.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak later.
We are considering a proposal to add just £80 million to the capital expenditure that has done so much in the public sector to provide a decent standard of living for ordinary Londoners. If Conservative Members want to halve the money, they will have to bear the consequences.

Mr. Jessel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for having to raise a point of order. I seldom do so. Is it relevant and within the rules of procedure for an hon. Member, in a debate on the GLC, to refer to five functions of local government, none of which has anything to do with the role of the GLC? The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) mentioned water, which was handed over to the Thames water authority——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have got the hon. Gentleman's point. I do not think that I have heard anything that is out of order. Mr. Dobson.

Mr. Dobson: I have completed my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Sir Anthony Berry: It has for many years been a custom of the House to table a blocking motion on GLC Bills. It has been done by both parties, regardless of which has been in Government or in control at county hall. All parties have welcomed such a motion as an opportunity to discuss London matters and to exchange views. The usual channels have also welcomed it, as it relieves pressure for London debates in Government or Opposition time. Colleagues who represent other parts of the country welcome it for other reasons.
This year, the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill went through on the nod. That is unusual and it is therefore not altogether surprising that the Bill has been treated what I might call normally. The procedure by which the GLC receives approval for its capital expenditure and lending though the money Bill is not just curious, but unique, and has been so for many years. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have welcomed that.
Four years ago the House considered a new system for controlling the capital expenditure of local authorities. The GLC made special pleas to keep the money Bill procedure, which were heeded. The money Bill was therefore reinstated in the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980, although in a somewhat modified form. At that time the GLC was Conservative-controlled, and I well understand why Sir Horace Cutler wished to retain the

existing system. The following year the Labour group, under Mr. Andrew McIntosh, about who we do not hear quite so much these days, won control.

Mr. Tony Banks: He has gone to the Lords.

Sir Anthony Berry: Of course he has; I wonder why.
So far as I know, no requests have been made by the GLC under its present control to change that system. So we come to this year's Bill. It will not, of course, be the last such Bill, but I accept that we are considering it under rather unusual circumstances. Therefore, it is right that we should inspect it in a special way and consider what is in it. That is why my hon. Friends and I have put down the instruction on which we shall be voting later.
Before I discuss the Bill I must carry out another tradition that we have in the House, namely, that the first Member to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, after the Second Reading motion has been moved, pays tribute to the hon. Member who has moved it. This I do willingly and happily. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) did not take us through the different clauses, as I expected. Possibly he did not want to do it. He preferred to make the more political points rather than to explain the details of the Bill. Nevertheless, I thank him for doing so. He has played a leading part in London debates over the last few years and we have enjoyed his interventions. We particularly enjoy his special way of indicating what Hansard reporters frequently describe as indicating dissent. We all do it in our various ways by making noises. The hon. Gentleman does it with a rather delightful chuckle which we have all come to know. We know that if he does that he does not agree with what we say. I shall be disappointed if I do not hear the odd chuckle during my speech.
I come now to the basic problem that concerns my hon. Friends and myself. We are greatly cheered at the prospect of the GLC ceasing to exist in about two years' time, but while it remains it must have power to carry out necessary capital works; I emphasise the word "necessary". Also, it has to make appropriate grants and loans and so on in discharge of its functions. It would be contrary to the interests of Londoners, at a time when the Government are doing so much for the citizens of London in making local democracy really local——

Mr. Banks: rose——

Sir Anthony Berry: I should like to finish my sentence. I should not like the hon. Gentleman to miss the thrust of what I am saying, because no doubt it is something with which he will wish to agree. At a moment when the Government are doing so much for the citizens of London in making local democracy really local, it would be wrong for the powers of the money Bill to be totally withheld.

Mr. Banks: If the hon. Gentleman believes that the Government are doing so much for Londoners and local democracy, how can he equate that with recent opinion polls which show that 67 per cent. of Londoners are totally opposed to the abolition of the GLC and the abolition of the GLC elections?

Sir Anthony Berry: I think that I can answer the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I shall be criticised by him for referring to the account from which the money being spent by the GLC on propaganda is coming. I am in no doubt that that is the main reason for the swing in public opinion,


as expressed by the polls, but I have always taken the view that the ballot box is what matters, just as it did this time last year. The hon. Gentleman had a nice majority in his constituency, but he did not find many of his friends from his party coming into the House last year. I do not think that he will find someone from the Labour party coming here from Portsmouth after Thursday.
I am not prepared to agree to whatever level of spending the GLC wishes to choose. This would be wrong at any time, and certainly it would be wrong at the moment—here I come to the hon. Gentleman's point — when it appears to be spending £6 million of ratepayers' money to finance a campaign to ensure its continued existence. I do not mind which account that comes out of, whether it is capital or interest or whatever. What I am concerned about is the fact that our fellow London ratepayers, without permission from them, are having to pay for that propaganda campaign. I do not believe that that was ever envisaged when the legislation under which that is allowed was passed by Parliament. It is disgraceful that it is used in that way.

Mr. Banks: So the Government are changing the rules.

Sir Anthony Berry: We are not changing the rules.

Mr. Banks: They want to.

Sir Anthony Berry: I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could have brought in a Bill to change the rules. We have not done so. We fight on the facts of the argument and we are prepared to go on doing so.
My next note was in regard to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), but we have got to him already. The hon. Gentleman accepted a figure of £1·5 million across the Floor of the House some months ago for the propaganda campaign. I think that the GLC has allowed £3 million in the financial year. I suspect that the figure is nearer £6 million, but if the hon. Gentleman can give us facts and figures I am sure that they will enrich the debate and allow us to discuss the whole problem with much more interest, and we might yet find out why the opinion polls have changed.

Mr. Banks: As the hon. Gentleman asked me a direct question, perhaps I may reply to him. Does he not understand that the Bill is about capital? It has nothing to do with the use of section 137 or the revenue account. He must understand that difference. If he wants to know the figure, it is probably about £2·5 million. Of course, all this money is being properly and legally spent and it is open to any London ratepayer, including the hon. Gentleman, to challenge it via the district auditor if he so wishes.

Sir Anthony Berry: Of course the hon. Gentleman is right. We can challenge it. I am not suggesting that it is against the law. It was the hon. Gentleman who asked me why I thought that the opinion polls were showing support for keeping the GLC. I say that it is because of the mass expenditure, from whatever account, of ratepayers' money in this respect. Therefore, I think that it is relevant.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Does my hon. Friend agree that section 137 money could be used on capital expenditure? Would it not be far better spent on doing things from the list of items to which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) referred than on propaganda?

Sir Anthony Berry: Yes. My hon. Friend has great knowledge of these problems. I am most grateful to him and I hope that Opposition Members will heed what he has said.
I believe that Opposition Members are also concerned about the timing of the exchanges on the Bill. I should like to put this on the record to defuse in advance any points that they may make. The GLC finance and general purposes committee approved the capital programme on 2 February. GLC officers wrote to the Department of the Environment on 9 February with proposals for the Bill. These had to be considered carefully, and the reply was sent on 3 April. I accept that this was only two days before the final finance and general purposes committee meeting before the date of deposit o f Bills. I am sure the GLC would not have expected the Government to reply without its proposals being given the consideration they deserve.
It would have been helpful if the GLC had sent draft proposals before final adoption by the council, If it had done that, as had been done in the past, whichever party was in control at county hall, even with later amendments the Government would have been in a position to give their views earlier. The GLC claims that its intentions had been known since the publication of a consultation document in October. That is not the same as having a document which shows how the expenditure plans will be translated into money Bill terms. The refusal of the GLC to allow the Department to see the proposals in advance is typical——

Mr. Ron Leighton: Can the hon. Gentleman explain whether he is speaking for the Government or as a simple Back Bencher?

Sir Anthony Berry: I appreciate the compliment the hon. Gentleman has paid me. I think he knows the answer. It was kind of him to draw attention to my position in the House, which is not that of a member of the Government.
The GLC's refusal to allow the Department to see the proposals in advance is typical of its attitude and in keeping with its refusal to allow officials from the Department of the Environment to look at the books to see where real savings can be found. I wonder what it has to hide.
I hope that I have explained why we believe that it is right to examine the figures in this year's money Bill with particular care to discover whether the proposed expenditure should be reduced. We are not prepared to sign for whatever level of spending the GLC chooses to ask. The GLC has notoriously exaggerated ideas of what constitutes appropriate spending. I speak not so much of capital expenditure as of the whole range of its total spending, for whatever purpose, at a time when control of public expenditure is one of the Government's top priorities.
We must bear in mind the wider question of the prospects for local authority capital expenditure in England as a whole this year. That expenditure is controlled by cash limits. In the first two years of the capital control system—1981–82 and 1982–83—the cash limit was not under threat. Indeed, in 1982–83 the Government were able to offer authorities additional capital expenditure allocations to use up the emergent underspend. In 1983–84 the pattern changed. The Government now say that capital spending that year will probably turn out, when fully analysed, to have been close to the cash limit.
There are various possible reasons for the change. It is common sense to attribute much of it to authorities' increasing familiarity with the new system and their increasing readiness to commit spending justified by capital receipts now that they have a couple of years of receipts in the bag. The extra spending in 1983–84 will not just disappear as we move into 1984–85.
I do not speak as a member of the Government, but I understand that the Government have suggested to local authority associations that the arrangements for monitoring capital expenditure should be revamped to give the earliest possible indications of the likely spend this year.
If the cash limits are to be adhered to this year, the level of authorities' net capital expenditure must not exceed £2·75 billion of new capital receipts. If spending looks like exceeding that level Treasury rules will require that the Government consider taking corrective action mid-year. Whatever form such action took, it would clearly benefit neither local government nor the construction industry.
My colleagues and I do not wish the GLC to contribute unduly to the likelihood of such action. The Bill reflects a total capital programme involving about £500 million. For one local authority out of 400, even if it is much the largest authority that is a very filling slice of the cake.
Certain resources which authorities are allowed to spend — such as capital receipts accumulated from earlier years and the 10 per cent. year-to-year tolerance on allocations—are not allowed for specifically in the cash limit. The assumption is that the use of such resources by some authorities will be cancelled out by underspending elsewhere.
Provision in the Bill relies upon £66 million of such resources, plus a further £10 million based on allocations which the GLC hoped to receive from the Government, but did not secure. In all, the Bill puts an extra £76 million of pressure on the cash limit. It brings local government as a whole that much closer to some sort of corrective action. That figure alone represents almost 3 per cent. of the national cash limit—and we are still talking about just one authority out of 400.
The Government asked the GLC to reduce the provision in the Bill so that the £76 million was reduced to £30 million, but the GLC did not agree to that request. The first and main purpose of my motion is to achieve a reduction equal to that which the Government requested, because I believe that that is in the interests of local government as a whole.
I have accounted for £46 million of the £123 million mentioned in the motion. The reason for including the remaining £77 million is quite different. The £77 million represents amounts which the GLC has included in the Bill even though it says—I do not doubt its word—that it does not intend to spend them.
First, there is the provision of £50 million in part II of the schedule for lending to London boroughs. The GLC has no plans for such lending. The other £27 million is that part of the part III reserve which is not included in the GLC's plans. It has put the figure of £35 million in part III because it represents a full 10 per cent. year-to-year tolerance on allocations and is thus equal to the facility available to other authorities.
Such amounts have been included in previous year's Bills. The GLC said that it would not use them, and, it has

not done so, but lending to boroughs would not count against the cash limit in any case. I question whether it is sensible to put surplus provision in the Bill at this time.
If the GLC has to come to Parliament for authorisation for capital spending, let it ask for the spending that it really wants and not some other higher figure which it produces out of the sky. I propose the removal of the spare £77 million.
I have explained the reasons for my motion and I shall try to explain the intended effect. The first part of the instruction proposed to be given to the Committee on the Bill simply provides for £123 million to be taken away from the amount specified in the schedule as available to be spent at the GLC's sole discretion. That £123 million is equal to £46 million of real reduction, plus the surplus £77 million to which I have referred.
The second part of the instruction provides that the same sum of £123 million may be added to that part of the provision in the Bill which is subject to Treasury consent as to its use. I understand that the GLC is unlikely to ask for the addition and, speaking from the Back Benches, I see no objection to that. As a reasonable person, I should like to think that the Treasury would give consent to extra capital spending if it were satisfied that that was appropriate. If such a situation arose, having the extra resources available in part IV would make the consent feasible. [Interruption.] I hear a chuckle from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. Similarly, if for some reason the GLC, after all, wants to lend money to a London borough — which does not count against the cash limit—the Treasury could consent. It is reasonable to have a margin in part IV, but the main provision unequivocally available to the GLC should be based upon its real capital programme.
The third part of the instruction deals in more detail with where the reductions and additions should fall. The Committee needs clear guidance, but my motive this evening is not to attack particular items of GLC expenditure.
As the motion is in my name, I have deliberately refrained from naming individual areas where cuts can be found. That they can be found I am in no doubt, and I am sure that my hon. Friends will give examples from their own areas and experience. I also hope that the GLC, if the instruction is carried, as I believe it will be, will tell the Committee how it would like the changes made. The instruction allows it to do just that.
In case, for any reason, the GLC did not make such proposals, I had to propose something to cover that situation. I have assumed that with the spending of accumulated receipts cut below the maximum feasible the GLC will no longer wish to have recourse to the tolerance provision. I therefore suggest leaving only a token provision both for lending to the boroughs and for the use of tolerance, and distributing the rest of the reduction across the remaining items in parts I and II exactly pro rata to the GLC's own proposed split of provision in the Bill as it stands. Similarly, I propose that the split of provision of any addition to part IV between the GLC's own services and ILEA should be pro rata to the size of the programmes planned for each in the Bill as it stands—except that the whole of the amount for lending to boroughs would go under the GLC heading.
The final part of the instruction simply provides for the Committee to make any necessary consequential arrangements.
If the Bill were passed it would represent a further attempt by the Opposition to frustrate the clearly defined wishes of the electorate as expressed last June. There is a limit to the level of capital spending by the GLC which the nation as a whole can afford. In the Bill the GLC has shown that it has no realisation of the need to restrict its expenditure to that which is needed.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras tried to make out that if we carried the instruction all sorts of worthwhile projects would be lost. The money will be there under the Bill and under the instruction for all the worthwhile projects. He is misleading the House and Londoners if he makes out this evening that our action in passing the instruction will in any way inhibit the welcome improvements in schools, especially in the ILEA area. Money will still be there. It is up to those in charge of programmes to use the money as they think fit. If they choose not to carry out the improvements mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, that is up to them. We have allowed the money for them to be carried out. The nation can no longer afford the GLC. The instruction is a modest step in curtailing this unnecessary and extravagant waste of the money of our city's ratepayers.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I must disagree with the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry), although I agree with the first part of his speech in which he outlined the history of the Bill. I join him in saying that the system has worked reasonably well, at least until now. It is unique—but London is unique, although the Prime Minister does not always seem to appreciate that fact.
My hon. Friends and I have tabled an amendment to the instruction. I am obliged that that has been made possible through the procedures of the House. As I understand it, the instruction will be moved formally if the Bill is given a Second reading, and I shall be able to move the amendment formally.
I agree with the hon. Member for Southgate that the arrangements have usually worked well, but he said that necessary capital works will go ahead, although works regarded as unnecessary by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would come within the £46 million that is in dispute so that the instruction would curtail the operations of the GLC if it was extravagant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) mentioned discretionary expenditure. As I understand it, the GLC's discretionary expenditure will be cut by about 52 per cent. As the hon. Gentleman has not served in local government, I shall put on the record what that means. The GLC has entered into commitments that it must discharge, although they may not be of the first priority. The balance between what is remaining after they have been discharged and the money that is left in the kitty for projects was that referred to by my hon. Friend.
The hon. Gentleman may also agree that his reduction of £46 million may be split roughly as between £41 million or £42 million for the GLC and £4 million to £5 million for ILEA. The distinction between committed and discretionary expenditure shows why many of the projects mentioned may be at risk. We hope that the Minister will tell us why they are not at risk, if that is so.
The hon. Member for Southgate explained what the instruction does. He has split the £123 million into two

sums—£46 million of unnecessary expenditure and £77 million for lending. We must make clear that an instruction to a Committee does not have the power to lock away that money. The Bill's promoters have set down certain sums of money. The instruction to the Committee is to transfer those moneys to part IV of the schedule as moneys that the GLC cannot spend unless the Treasury says that it can do so. The hon. Gentleman claims that he GLC will not be spending the £77 million as it could not spend it anyway, or so he says. However, it might have spent the £46 million.
I approve of what the hon. Gentleman said about the Treasury letting the GLC spend some of that £46 million. I should put it on the record—this is in accordance with clause 6, which gives the GLC power to apply to the Treasury for all the sums that are left in part IV of the schedule — that if the Treasury agreed to payments, whether they are from the £77 million or the £46 million, the GLC could go ahead and use that money. Perhaps some of the projects referred to by my hon. Friend will come within that £46 million because of the discretion allowed in the Bill.
As a technicality, it is up to the GLC or the Bill's promoters to apply to the Committee for that transfer of funds. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, it is up to the GLC, if it so chooses, to decide during the Committee hearings whether the money should come out of parts I, II or III. As everyone knows, the members of a Committee considering a private Bill are not debating the merits of the Bill on party lines in the ordinary way as they would do if they were members of a Standing Committee. They are present in a judicial capacity, irrespective of party. They adjudicate between the merits of promoters and petitioners or those who feel that their right are being interrupted by the Bill.
Hon. Members would not usually make much fuss about the Bill, as it is unique in terms of private Bills. That is to everybody's advantage. But if the instruction is passed the position will be rather different. Members of the Committee will act almost in your role as chairman, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They will be concerned, under the Standing Orders on a private Bill, to protect the interests of the promoters and those who think that the Bill prejudices their private rights as citizens.
The reductions in moneys for the GLC are relevant at that point. There is a clear difference of opinion between my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and the GLC as to the effect of the instruction. I shall add to the points already made by my hon. Friend, as they were rather telling.
In the constituencies of Croydon, Central and Croydon, North-East—that is of some interest to an occupant of the Chair—rehabilitation of homes might be at risk with a loss of $178,000. I see that the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who usually contributes to London debates, is not in the Chamber. He may be concerned that major repairs to windows and roofs on the Harold Hill estate may be at risk to the tune of £925,000.

Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry) has a history of interfering in the affairs of Croydon, having written to the Prime Minister urging her to prevent housing development for the poorly housed in Lambeth from taking place in


Croydon. The hon. Member for Southgate suggested that the development might have altered the political complexion of one of the Croydon constituencies.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Member for Southgate had better watch out, because his instruction may have the same effect. We shall have to see. It may have some effect in Erith and Crayford. There, the GLC is planning to spend over £1 million on the reconstruction of Queens Kent road canal bridge, with the object of relieving heavy traffic congestion. That is something that everyone believes in. I remember the motorway box proposals when Conservative Members were hell bent on vast public expenditure and on the destruction of homes. They were defeated only by the ballot box. I remember The Guardian showing that caterpillar of a motorway being killed by someone puffing a ballot box at it.
The hon. Member for Southgate talks about local democracy. There are many ways in which the former Southgate borough council, the former corporation of West Ham, Paddington borough council and the metropolitan borough of Fulham are not really suitable for the task. We need an all-London government for all-London matters. The citizens of London need a vote in the ballot box on all-London matters, such as public expenditure being wasted on unnecessary motorways. Indeed, that is what the public did. However, the Prime Minister apparantly does not approve of that principle. Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), voted in favour of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, and apparently want to expunge the right of Londoners to vote on such London-wide issues.
As I have said, the Queens Kent road canal bridge may be at risk. Users of that bridge will say that this instruction may well jeopardise their rights as motorists. After all, motorists are very important to the Conservative party. Parents of children who attend schools where the lavatories will still be outside will say that the Bill, as changed in Committee, will jeopardise their rights as ratepayers and citizens, not because of the GLC or the Government per se, but because of the hon. Member for Southgate and his colleagues. Under the private Bill procedures, they will have rights. All sorts of petitions can be made against the Bill. However, I shall not go into that.
The opportunity then arises for the GLC to apply to the Treasury. Let us suppose that there is an uprising in Upminster, that there are objections and petitions from Erith and Crayford, or that the people of Croydon complain because they want their houses repaired, and that the GLC—being a democratically responsive organisation—decides to go to the Treasury to see whether it will allow the GLC to spend the money. That money, of course, will be locked away in part IV of the schedule, under Treasury control.
In his optimism or, I hope, knowledge, the hon. Member for Southgate said that the Treasury might well decide to agree to that money being spent. However, I think that he may have forgotten mentioning much earlier in his speech that there was a bit of disagreement with the Government, and that the Bill and its changes represented what the Government said that the GLC should be spending. So if the normal and quite good negotiations broke down at an earlier stage, why does the hon.

Gentleman think that the Government will change their mind if the GLC has a second bite at the cherry? I was very surprised by what he said. I was pleased to hear it, but I think that his speech was contradictory to that extent. We shall have to assume that the answer is no.

Sir Anthony Berry: I was most anxious to establish my position following the question which I was asked as to whether I was speaking for the Government or as a Back Bencher. I hope that I have made it clear that I was speaking as a Back Bencher. I am sure that the Government will come to the right decision when the occasion arises.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has given his view of the right decision, which is minus £46 million. He is really saying that the right decision is no. But is that the right decision from the point of view of the rights of the public? The present members of the GLC were elected in 1972 — [HON. MEMBERS: "1981."] I should have said that they were elected in 1981, on a mandate to carry out the policies that they are pursuing. I was confused for a moment about the dates, just as the Prime Minister was confused this afternoon. She said that councillors in London boroughs had a mandate to go to the GLC. But the mandate that we are talking about was given by the London electorate in 1981 for the GLC to carry out its programmes.
This is where the effect of an amendment to the instruction comes into play. Given what I have said and certain inconsistencies in the remarks of the hon. Member for Southgate, I hope that he will agree to accept the amendment even though, for obvious reasons, I would not necessarily agree with the total instruction, as amended. I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand that. I shall explain what I hope will happen if my amendment is accepted.
Earlier I said that the role of a private Bill Committee was to adjudicate between the rights of the promoters, and the rights of petitioners and of those who feel that their rights have been infringed. Across the Floor of the House, we can disagree about the £46 million, and we can talk about lavatories, houses and canal bridges, wherever they may be. We shall not come to a proper judicial conclusion tonight. However, my amendment would instruct the Committee to take evidence and to determine the criteria on which the Treasury should assent to or dissent from any further application from the GLC. That is a clear and proper instruction for the House to give. It allows the four or five hon. Members set aside for the purpose to take evidence on the sort of criteria that the Government or Treasury should apply when saying yes or no to an application. I have explained to Conservative Members that the Treasury is not told to pay the money but is given guidance on whether it should say yea or nay. That is a logical, fair and appropriate procedure.
If the hon. Member for Southgate accepts the amendment, the Committee will no doubt hear evidence from the promoters, and perhaps from ratepayers who do not think that the money should be spent, as to the criteria that the Treasury should apply when ILEA or the GLC wants to put more lavatories inside schools, when the rotting window frames in Upminster have to be repaired, or the canal bridge at Erith is built. The Treasury would then apply proper public expenditure value-for-money


criteria, or something of the sort — which we would instruct the Committee to prepare—and, guided by that, would say yes or no.
In the interests of good parliamentary procedure and of taking an objective look at the real needs, that is the right way to proceed. The GLC would not necessarily get as much as it wanted. It might not get back anything like the £46 million. If it does not have that, there is not much likelihood of it getting anything. It is not the GLC but the citizens of London who would be estopped from getting items of capital equipment which they voted for in the 1981 election and which they have a right to expect.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am in favour of the amendment and against the instruction. It is worthwhile just re-emphasizing the point made by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry). It is unique that the GLC has to come to the House each year to have its capital expenditure approved. That is a point that I am tempted to make when Conservative Members go on about GLC spending. The House has within its power the right of control over the GLC's capital expenditure, not in terms of specific projects, but in terms of the overall amount that is due to be spent.
It could well be that among other things we are witnessing tonight the future for the affairs of London. I hope that most hon. Members realise just how unsatisfactory it would be if the misconceived proposal to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan county councils went through. As hon. Members know, there has been general talk about having a debate once a year about the affairs of London as they relate to the administration of local government. It could be that that is the future for the running of London. It is clearly unsatisfactory. It has always been rather strange that the GLC is subjected to such an investigation. It is unsatisfactory because hon. Members are at least one stage removed from local accountability and the understanding of the needs of the people of London. Moreover, it is open to non-London Members to be present to put in their four pennyworth.
In the past, negotiations between the GLC and the Government have been between honourable people. Therefore, the system, despite its defects, has tended to work. But today's Tory Government cannot be considered honourable. I believe them to be dishonourable and not to be trusted as a Government. The GLC has always in the past complied with the law and never broken an undertaking that has been given verbally by its officers during negotiations with the Government. This year Labour Members believe that the Government have treated the GLC abominably. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) put his finger on it when he said that the attack upon the Bill — it is undoubtedly Government-inspired — anticipates the proposal to abolish the GLC. Therefore, it is a back-door method of pursuing a political campaign that the Government have been waging against 'the GLC for the past 12 months and more.
In setting the rate for 1984–85 the GLC anticipated capital expenditure as set out in the Bill. The hon. Member for Southgate was misleading himself, or he was being misled by whoever wrote his brief—someone, I suspect in the Department of the Environment — when he suggested that the Government were not aware of the GLC's capital spending programme. The GLC made it

quite clear in the consultative document issued last October exactly what it wants to spend in capital terms. Accusations that are bandied around by Conservative Members that the GLC is unaccountable for its spending take no account of the fact that for the past three years the GLC has had a major public exercise over its budget. It has given borough councils, individuals, trade associations and employers generally the opportunity to make representations about the level of spending. For the hon. Gentleman to say that the Government were not aware of the GLC's capital spending is to mislead the House. I believe that he has been misled by whoever wrote his brief.
The GLC has raised much of its money in the form of its rate precept and its capital receipts. That money belongs to the London ratepayers as Conservative Members have said. It is up to the ratepayers of London's elected accountable council—the GLC—to spend that money on behalf of the ratepayers. There is no fear of the ballot box at County Hall. Indeed, the only fear of the ballot box exists on the Conservative Benches and particularly in the mind of the Prime Minister. She is frightened of the ballot box, which is why she will not have elections in 1985. We have said this before. If Conservative Members want to test it let us have the election in May 1985. That is the way to test who has really got it right.
The hon. Member for Horrisey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) —who has suddenly left our proceedings——

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: How sad.

Mr. Banks: It is sad only in so far as I am not able to correct him in his hearing. He mentioned the fact that the council can use section 137 for capital expenditure. Of course it can. That is well known. But that capital expenditure must come within the limits of proscribed expenditure. What is paid by the one hand has to be deducted by the other.
The Bill has nothing to do with the council's revenue grants but has to do with the council's capital programme. The effect of the transfer of £123 million to part IV will mean real cuts, since capital money is likely to be authorised only by the Treasury where the Government are willing to release additional resources to the authorities generally. The GLC will be unable to go along with the Treasury, even if the amendment is accepted, and ask it to treat the applications on an individual basis. If I am wrong, I hope that the Minister will correct me. The GLC will only obtain capital authorisation if it is part of a wider policy that the Government are pursuing at that particular time to make greater resources available to local government generally. If one holds one's breath waiting for that to happen there will be a lot of dead bodies around. It will not happen. The Government will not authorise additional expenditure for local authorities.
The effect of paragraph (c)(ii) of the instruction to the Committee—a reduction of 7·49 per cent. of each line — will cut new projects from £80 million to £39 million, a reduction of 52 per cent. That is what we are talking about. Certain other levels of spending could be given up by the council, particularly the borrowings to the local boroughs, as not damaging the council's capital projects. Paragraph (c)(ii) would result in a reduction of 52 per cent. on the GLC's new capital projects. That comes about because most capital spending rolls forward from previously signed contracts. All the cuts will have to


fall on new starts. If the Bill becomes law we shall see a 52 per cent. cut in areas of expenditure where the council has any real discretion. That is yet another example of the way in which Whitehall is now interfering in the affairs of local authorities, and specifically in the affairs of the GLC.
I ask Conservative Members to reflect for a while. Lists have been read out to them of the capital projects that could be in danger if the instruction goes through. It is not just improvements in social amenities that will be lost to Londoners. Conservative Members should realise the effects within the construction industry in London generally. Capital projects mean work for contractors, most of whom will be private. About £85 in every £100 spent by local authorities works its way into the private sector. By restricting the GLC's new capital expenditure programme Conservatives are inflicting more unemployment on the construction and supply industries which are already suffering badly from public expenditure cuts generally. That is something that the Prime Minister has never yet understood.

Mr. Dobson: Does my hon. Friend accept that, from the selfish point of view of the Conservative party, it would be unwise to obstruct those capital projects because considerable amounts of money move from those contractors into the funds of the Tory party? The list of the major civil engineering contractors of the GLC reads like a list of major contributors to Tory party funds.

Mr. Banks: I have never understood why those contractors do that, because, over the past few years, the high level of bankruptcies shows that, whoever else benefits from the Government's economic policies — frankly, I have yet to find any large category, other than the small circle of the Government's friends—it cannot be the construction industry. That industry, and certainly its small and medium-sized firms, has suffered heavily from the Government's economic policies in terms of reductions in public spending. The instruction will exacerbate an already appalling position. Once again, this action amounts to gross interference by central Government in the affairs of a local authority. One must return to the fact that this is all part of the Government's vindictive campaign against the Labour-controlled GLC.

Mr. Martin Stevens: Whoever is interfering it is not central Government, but half a dozen Back Benchers.

Mr. Banks: I was not born yesterday, and nor was the hon. Gentleman. I always accept him as an honourable person. It looks to Labour Members as though this measure is Government-inspired, and the hon. Member for Southgate was given a brief written by the Department of the Environment. The brief was certainly up to the generally low standards of briefs supplied these days by the Department of the Environment to the Government Front Bench. It cannot be said that this is a matter that involves just Back Benchers. I should be interested to know what the Under-Secretary of State thinks about the matter.
I have been shuffling my papers to ascertain what projects will be in jeopardy in the constituency of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens). I shall cite some of them:the new King's road footway, housing rehabilitation

and an Elizabethan school project for the Castle youth club. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that projects in his constituency could be at risk if he supports the instruction. Opposition Members have read out the various projects that will be in jeopardy if the instruction is carried.
I speak as a member of the GLC, and I know of the feeling on this matter. I know what projects will be hit if this instruction is carried. I shall use what small influence I have at county hall to ensure that we hit the constituencies of those Conservative Members who vote in favour of the instruction. There will be a certain degree of "selective vindictiveness" — I use a phrase that has been mentioned before. There is no way that Conservative members should think that they can escape from the consequences of their actions. I shall do my best as an individual member of the GLC to ensure that retribution is visited on the heads of Conservative Members. I hope that the GLC will ensure that the constituents of Conservative Members know exactly who is responsible for cutting projects in their areas.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: How would the hon. Gentleman deal with a constituency that has, say, a Conservative Member of Parliament and a Labour member of the GLC?

Mr. Banks: With extreme difficulty; but I am sure that it will not be beyond the intelligence and wit of Labour GLC members to ensure that the chickens come home to roost. Conservative Members will not be allowed to get away with quietly passing this measure. No one is reporting this debate, so it will not get a great deal of publicity. They must not believe that they will get away with this action, without some retribution being visited upon them. I shall certainly use whatever influence I have at county hall to ensure that they pay the price.

Mrs. Angela Rumbold: It will come as no surprise to Opposition Members for me to say that it gives me much pleasure to support the instruction to the Committee. I can see no earthly reason why the GLC should not be subjected to the constraints and disciplines to which every other London local council and local authority throughout the country are subjected when they make their budgets.
I shall be a trifle tedious and explain how a budget is put together by a local authority. There is a clear distinction between two elements—capital expenditure and revenue expenditure.

Mr. Dobson: In the first place, there is need.

Mrs. Rumbold: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's point. I remind hon. Members that the capital expenditure is taxpayers' money. It is not money given by the Government, the Treasury or the chap in the friendly local bank. It is the permission to borrow money that is given to local authorities to carry out a reasoned capital programme. The GLC had a reasoned capital programme.
When putting a budget together, the first item that must be considered for revenue expenditure is the interest on the borrowed capital. One begins to see, therefore, how revenue and capital expenditure must interlink. It is exceedingly important, when beginning to put a budget together, to look at the capital programme to ascertain the likely consequential revenue expenditure for future years. Given the constraint of cash limiting for capital


expenditure, many local authorities have had to exercise a certain amount of discretion, choice and settling of priorities when selecting capital projects. The proposal is to look at £123 million which is being put in to the discretionary part of the GLC's capital expenditure. I believe that it would be right in that connection to undertake a certain amount of exercising of priorities.
I have met the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) before. Numbers of local authorities have to deal with chairmen of committees such as those on education, housing, transportation and social services. Those chairmen all have special feelings. They all list the various schools, housing projects and social service projects that are high on their list of priorities, and they all want those projects in their capital programme for the coming year.
The hon. Gentleman listed the programmes and projects for London. Undoubtedly some of those projects are worth while, but others must, by their nature, be not as worth while. The task of responsible local government is to examine and to put into order of priority not only revenue expenditure but capital expenditure for capital programmes. I suggest that that task needs to be done. If it is not possible for the present GLC to do that responsibly, the Treasury and Parliament have a right and reason to look at those priorities.
When examining the capital programme, other elements must be considered. Besides putting into some order of priority the projects for expenditure, one must consider the fact that one is looking to future years for revenue consequences and is borrowing taxpayers' money, on which one must, therefore, pay interest.
Local government programmes nearly always suffer every financial year from what is known as slippage. In other words, a certain sum is put aside for a capital programme in the knowledge that not all of the money will be spent by the end of the financial year. I suggest that that will be the outcome of money that is allocated under part IV of capital expenditure for the GLC. It is more than likely that the sum that is to be withheld would not be spent in total even if some of it were granted at any time by the Treasury on the ground that it was a special project.
An important element is the contingency arrangement that will be built in automatically to any capital expenditure programme. Contingency arrangements are made for good reasons. It is not unusual for unforeseen events to take place during the course of a capital programme. However, it is unlikely that all the money that is put into the contingency funds will necessarily be spent. Therefore, I suggest that there are good reasons for putting aside into part IV the discretion for the Treasury and for a Committee to examine carefully each and every project and to satisfy itself in as judicial a way as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) suggested it would be necessary to do.
I agree that we must be exceedingly careful not to prejudge issues. Nevertheless, for all the reasons that I have outlined, I contend that there is every possible justification for ensuring that the proposed capital programme is reviewed exceedingly carefully to ascertain whether there are elements of expenditure which will never be expended or, if they are, will not be expended in the best interests of the people of London. It is important to recognise that the people of London pay rates to the GLC and to their own borough council, and at the same time are taxpayers.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the hon. Lady seriously suggesting that the Treasury knows better than elected councillors of the GLC about the local needs of Londoners in terms of capital projects?

Mrs. Rumbold: I venture tentatively to suggest that it is possible that those who are not elected members of the GLC would be able to come to a proper judgment. I make that suggestion in the light of the hon. Gentleman's speech, in which he revealed that his motivation for allocating capital expenditure is not reached on an impartial or justifiable basis. It seems that he does not consider individual projects to determine which are worth while and which are not. He said that he would make certain that some boroughs had less money spent on them, for vindictive reasons. That does not seem to be rational. That is a good reason why the Treasury or a Committee should make an effort to examine proposed capital expenditure.

Ms. Harriet Harman: As the hon. Lady said, Londoners are taxpayers and ratepayers. Does she accept that those of my constituents who live on the Gloucester Grove estate are taxpayers and ratepayers and also pay rent to live in an estate which was formally owned by the GLC? Does she accept, too, that they are entitled to ask that capital moneys be spent to rectify appalling design faults which make it almost impossible to live on that expensive estate? They are entitled to some of the moneys in the form of capital projects.

Mrs. Rumbold: There may be enormous defects and great need for rectification on council estates in the hon. Lady's constituency, as there are in many London constituencies. With the benefit of hindsight, one realises that many of the large estates which were built immediately after the war were not built as well as they might have been and a certain amount of capital expenditure is required to deal with problems. However, there are other ways in which those estates might be viewed and one might not necessarily be thinking in the long term that the best policy is to pour money down the same drain as that into which the original money went when the estates were constructed.

Mr. Dobson: rose——

Mrs. Rumbold: No, I shall not give way. That is an excellent reason for the local authorities which are to take over the responsibility of examining capital programmes in future to have an opportunity to set their own priorities and to make their own decisions on how they wish to expend capital in future. The proposition before the House is reasonable, and one which I wholeheartedly support.

Mr. Toby Jessel: I entered the Chamber already determined to vote for the instruction. My determination to do so has been reinforced by the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), which contained a threat. We heard him say that any hon. Member who voted for the instruction would suffer in his constituency from a withdrawal of capital expenditure by the GLC. The hon. Gentleman said that he would use all the influence within his power to bring that about.
I do not know the extent of the influence which the hon. Gentleman retains in the GLC, but I can tell him that British people do not yield to threats or blackmail. The


hon. Gentleman has attempted to make a threat or to blackmail Conservative Members. It is a good rule in life never to give in to threats or blackmail and I do not have any intention of doing so. As far as I am aware, no GLC scheme is intended in my constituency. If there is, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my constituents, in Twickenham, Teddington, the Hamptons and Whitton would not wish me to give in to his threat. I repeat that I have not the slightest intention of doing so.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) spoke somewhat more impressively than the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. In his peroration he referred with great passion to five areas of expenditure. These were water, sewerage, housing, education and hospitals. He used these areas of expenditure as examples of what we should have in mind in supporting the continuation of the GLC. He talked about not spending enough or severely reducing expenditure within these areas. That is what the argument about the abolition of the GLC is all about.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about capital expenditure on water; but water is controlled by the Thames water authority. He spoke about capital expenditure on sewerage; but sewerage is controlled by the Thames water authority. Responsibility for sewerage was removed from the GLC about 10 years ago. He spoke about capital expenditure on housing; but the great bulk of the vast heritage of council housing which the GLC inherited from the former London county council 19 years ago, which housed 1·25 million people—equivalent to the entire population of Birmingham — was transferred almost entirely to the 32 London boroughs. That happened five or six years ago and the then Labour Government gave their consent.
Education in inner London is run by the Inner London education authority, and there is no intention of abolishing that authority. On the contrary, it will be directly elected. In outer London, education is run by the boroughs. Finally, the hon. Gentleman referred to hospitals, which have never been run by the GLC. The hon. Gentleman's remarks in that GLC context were irrelevant.
I am not convinced that the GLC makes correct use of all the capital resources that are placed at its disposal. I shall give two illustrations that have been presented to me by constituents. First, a constituent who is a pensioner and who was employed as an officer at county hall has complained to me of a report that the GLC has offered to use GLC pension fund moneys to buy the Liverpool town hall. This constituent lives at Hampton Wick.
It was reported earlier this year that the Greater London pension fund money was to be used to buy Liverpool town hall, and to lease it back to the GLC at a peppercorn rent. The object would have been a financial one to enable the Liverpool city council to continue paying its bills, including the wages of its staff. I suggest to the House that that is an improper use of capital resources under the control of the GLC. It is wrong to use the pension fund in that way. Not content with abusing the ratepayers' money, the GLC now wishes to abuse its pensioners' money. That the pensions of GLC officials should be jeopardised in this way by Greater London councillors wanting to involve themselves in the extremist policies of Liverpool is utterly wrong. I hope that Opposition Members will give me a

clear and definite assurance that this wicked proposal has been dropped, and that the GLC has no intention of doing anything of the kind.

Mr. Tony Banks: Indeed, that proposal was never made. The suggestion that the GLC should buy the Liverpool city hall, and then lease it back at a peppercorn rent, and pay all the staff, is arrant nonsense. The GLC could have bought certain parts of Liverpool as a form of investment for the future, but pension funds are known often to buy large amounts of property, and they do not lease them back at peppercorn rents.

Mr. Jessel: I am glad to hear that there is no intention of doing this, but there has never been any official denial by Mr. Livingstone or other leading councillors of the GLC. They have kept remarkably quiet about it since a great deal was reported on it in March. I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's assurance, which has hitherto been lacking.
I deal next with another aspect of abuse of capital resources by the GLC which concerns its failure to make efficient use of one main road in west London on which a large sum of GLC capital expenditure was incurred, as it has been on London Transport buses in the area. Capital resources of the GLC put into that road — the main radial road into west London, Cromwell road, leading into Talgarth road, leading into the A4, the M4 and the M3 into Heathrow airport—have been constrained by a foolish traffic scheme which was instigated by the GLC in a decision to reduce the lanes from three to two lanes, although later that was slightly modified. There is still serious congestion, as there has been over the last three or four weeks.
This is arguably the most important road in Greater London. The road was built by the GLC with funds on capital account as voted in a previous GLC money Bill. It has caused colossal traffic jams which have spread to other places, because, as the traffic could not easily get through, it has attempted to go through other routes, and so has jammed up places like Hammersmith, Shepherds Bush and Putney. Thousands of my constituents are held up each day, and public transport buses in those areas are being delayed.

Mr. Corbyn: I realise that the hon. Gentleman has not had much experience of driving recently, but could he tell the House whether he is certain that the expenditure on the Talgarth road right-turn about which he complains is capital expenditure, and not revenue expenditure?

Mr. Jessel: It was certainly capital expenditure that was incurred in the construction of Cromwell road which was intended to be used at full capacity. I happened to be a member of the GLC at the time that the Talgarth road-Cromwell road extension was constructed. I am complaining that the resources of the GLC put into that road, and on which GLC ratepayers to this day are paying interest, are being improperly and inefficiently used.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman and I were on the same Committee when that capital investment was made. Will he tell the House whether he thinks that such traffic management schemes should be decided by locally elected people at county hall, as they are at the GLC, or by central Government?

Mr. Jessel: I very much hope that Cromwell road will shortly—by which I mean April 1986—become a trunk


road under the control of the Minister for Transport when it will be much better run, and will not be subject to unwise traffic management decisions by the councillors of the GLC who have shown themselves to be guilty of sheer administrative incompetence and unwise decisions taken against the clear advice of their officials and of the Metropolitan police, who strongly advised against the scheme, and said that serious traffic congestion would result from it, as it has.
Several of my constituents have written to me, including one doctor who said:
There would seem to be no logical reason why the traffic flow into London should have been reduced to absolute chaos for the advantage of what must be a handful of drivers wishing to turn right. The resulting tail-back was monumental in the morning rush hour; but even in the evening when I was called back to my hospital for an emergency, I still found the traffic leading up to this junction at a standstill.
It is appalling that the scheme should have been allowed to go ahead. The GLC councillors have flouted the professional advice that they received. The experiment is a failure, and it should be called off forthwith.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I wish to deal first with points made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), because she appears to think two things that surprise me, although they surprise me less every time that I hear London Members of the Conservative party speaking on matters relating to London government. She said first that, in accord with the normal practice, it was normal for the London budget to be submitted even more substantially for approval, vetting and authorisation by the Government in comparison with other local authorities. As I understand it, the provisions covering the financing of London are unique, and have always been different. They alone provide the specific mechanism by which in the past the Treasury has been given a part of the budget for its approval.

Mrs. Rumbold: I made my comment about this being normal in the context of local government as a whole. Local government, when considering its budgets, automatically sets priorities, and puts the programmes side by side to decide which it should choose. That applies to the GLC, and has always done so.

Mr. Hughes: Of course I accept that. Priorities have to be made. We say that it is wrong in principle to extend the opportunities for central Government—in this case, the Treasury — to determine what local government is providing for in the capital planning of its resources. The hon. Member said that there ought to be some control "by the Treasury", or by some other body. Other bodies already exist throughout the country that are empowered by various pieces of legislation to send in local government auditors to examine the books. This does not apply in the same way to budget provision as it does to spending by local authorities. The argument of Conservative Members that matters of local government budgeting and financial planning should be overridden by the employees of central Government, if the Government feel so minded, is wrong in our view, and particularly so because the figures show that in recent years, it is central Government spending that has risen in relation to local government spending, and the fault has been not with local authorities, but with local government.

Mrs. Rumbold: In the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980, there is a specific provision for central Government to cash limit capital expenditure. It is to that that I referred, and that is how it happens at present.

Mr. Hughes: That is correct, but the Bill proposes to take a sector of the planned budget out of the list of items which can automatically go through into the list which requires prior authorisation. That will increase the amount of central Government power to look at, interfere with and negative decisions made by local government. Because of our procedures, the GLC must have a Bill introduced in House by promoters. The principle is the same. We object to the further extension of the power of central Government. Once the legislative framework is in place, that should be sufficient.
There is a procedural objection to what are clearly Government proposals wrapped up in private Members' motions. It must be clear to everyone—it would be helpful if it were admitted rather than denied—that the Government are asking Conservative London Back Bench members to put forward what the Government want. They have involved the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry) and others. It is an objectionable method; it is objectionable when Whips interfere in the business of private Bills; it is objectionable when Back Benchers pretend that they are acting for themselves in the full knowledge that they act for the Government.
The Minister will no doubt shortly stand up and say that the Government support the proposals. He could say that the Government will reserve their position and consider what they should do. But the reality is that he will not oppose what is proposed by Conservative Back Benchers, including the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) to whom I give way.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my categorical assurance that no Minister or Whip has asked me to be one of the signatories.

Mr. Hughes: I certainly accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance. However, without the assurance of the other Conservative Members that there has been no contact between the Government, the Department of the Environment and themselves, we cannot believe that it has not happened.
I echo the view expressed earlier that the speech of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate sounded, in the second part, mightily like the speeches that we have heared before, written by the gentlemen who sit in the Officials Box, and who spend more of their time in Marsham street than they do as research assistants to hon. Members.

Mr. Martin Stevens: I can confirm that we have not been suborned by the Government but are acting in our proper capacities as private Members. I am happy to add my name to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) as one upon whom no pressure of any kind has been put. This debate is a private Members' debate, and, although it involves the disclosure of secrets, I must say that there has been no whipping by the Government's business managers. That is a clear sign that the Government are treating the matter as private business.

Mr. Hughes: Although I have not been here for long, I was not born yesterday. I would be surprised to find that, when we vote, the producing of hon. Members will be


carried out by those who are not members of the Government. If Government members are sitting in their places and not moving, I shall be interested to see the turn out of hon. Members. However, I accept the assurance of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens). It is noticeable that his name and that of the hon. Member for Surbiton are last on the list, and not included in the first four names.
I wish to raise a matter of substance about which local government makes valid complaints. The GLC produced its budget last year, but at the last moment the Government decided to say, "We do not like it. We want you to knock off money." It is the bane of the lives of those planning local government finance to have central Government intervene regularly and always belatedly. They cannot get on with their jobs, just as health authorities cannot get on with their jobs when, half way through the financial year, there are cuts. The Government, having had the documents on the table for some time, belatedly said that they were not satisfied.
We either decide as a country and as a Parliament to allow local government to get on with its job, and trust the people involved to do their jobs, or we say that we will not allow them to do so. It is unhealthy to intervene belatedly and it is not in the interests of those who try to carry out their jobs in local government.
I wish to reaffirm a matter of precedent. I understand that there has been not similar intervention in the past. It is not as though this has always been the way in which the Government have proceeded. They have not always gone back to the GLC and said "We do not like your proposals" — even since the present GLC took over in 1981. I am intrigued as to why, last year, there was not such an intervention, yet this year — when the Government anticipate being able to cap local government rate spending through another Bill, presently in another place — they suddenly need to intervene, especially as it is true that it is not local government but central Government whose expenditure is out of control.
Those are the matters of principle and I shall be brief about the specifics. It is clear that the effect of the proposal on the areas of budget to be transferred will mean that the Government will be likely to say that they will not authorise the money. There may be some duplication of expenditure, but that is a matter for assessment in each case. The substantial areas that could be affected are those such as housing in London. Former GLC housing stock, having been transferred, needs phenomenal amounts of capital expenditure to improve it to a decent condition that will make the estates ones in which people will want to live.
Much of London's housing was built at the same time, after the war. It is in need of substantial maintenance. When the property was handed over in 1981—although it was not handed over in Tower Hamlets and in a few other places — money was required for improvement work. Those former GLC estates—now the responsibility of the boroughs — have a continuing GLC commitment, and are liable to be most at risk.
One substantial estate on the edge of my constituency that borders Lewisham—the Silwood estate—is in an appalling state. It needs money so that it can become a place into which people wish to move rather than a place that people want to leave. The Dicken's estate could be a

nice estate, as it was originally. In general terms, people make efforts to keep it in a good state, but it needs substantial moneys spending on it. There are estates at the Southwark end of the constituency as well. I shall not trouble the House with many examples, but those are the places where money is needed for capital works that have been budgeted for and that the GLC should be allowed to budget for as the local authority, for the time being, of London.
To continue to cut back on a budgeted amount and to say that the central Government will decide that housing stocks particularly, but other projects as well, in London will suffer substantially when all hon. Members know that, of all parts of public spending, housing has been the most harmfully affected by the Government and that the housing conditions in London are getting worse day by day, is a particularly unjustified interference in the basic and most obvious need of most Londoners—to have a decent home.
We oppose the instruction to the Committee for that reason, and I hope that the promise of no intervention and no bringing Members here to vote will mean that we can defeat that instruction later on.

9 pm

Mr. Neil Thorne: The Government have an overall responsibility for total expenditure in the public sector and they must retain that control if they are to retain the power to govern. Therefore, it is essential that local government behaves responsibly if requested by central Government to take certain action. I believe that this has been the case for many years and that, until recently, the wishes of central Government have been adhered to by local government without question. It is a relatively new phenomenon, and the Government have had to introduce legislation to ensure that what by convention has happened in the past continues in the future. It is a retrograde step, particularly in a country with an unwritten constitution, that we should be forced into this situation by irresponsibility. This I am afraid may be a sign of the times, but it is not something that I can support.
If the Government do not take the necessary action that they are called upon to take now, undoubtedly that will mean that certain parts of the country will have to suffer a loss of resources, which will be taken from them to make up for profligate spending elsewhere, to ensure that the Government can retain overall control of the economy. This is an unfortunate state of affairs, and one that has been brought about directly by certain local authorities. Until 1979 it was my experience that, regardless of which Government were in power, if they sent messages to local authorities asking them to trim their budgets in certain ways and by certain amounts there would be negotiations, but at the end of the day the Government would have their way because it is an essential part of our constitution that Parliament is supreme. If we do not have that supremacy in Parliament the Government cannot govern, and to enable them to do so the Government will always have to take the necessary action to introduce the laws that will give them the power to do so.
The present GLC has earned for itself a reputation of profligacy. It has made it clear time and again that it intends to take every opportunity to sabotage the efforts of the Government in every possible way. This was made plain by the present leader of the GLC when his predecessor, Mr. McIntosh, now Lord McIntosh, was


pushed from office in the first few days after the present GLC administration came to power. The present leader then said that he was intending to take on the Government in every possible sphere. We have noticed that this extends as far as Northern Ireland, international affairs, defence, anything — name it, and the GLC has an irresistible desire to interfere. That is not what the GLC was set up to do, and it is only right and proper that it is checked to make sure that it behaves in a more responsible way.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will answer a question. How is this measure an interference by the GLC in the Government, as opposed to an interference by the Government in the GLC?

Mr. Thorne: This, as has already been explained to the hon. Gentleman, is an interference by Back Benchers, not by the Government. I have not been approached by any member of the Government to support such a measure. It is my intention to do so, because I believe that the GLC needs to be brought to account. Therefore, I propose to support my colleagues who have tabled the instruction, and I hope that large numbers of my colleagues will follow them into the Lobby.
The GLC is a profligate spender. Some people say that it has plans to spend as much as £6 million on advertising its own personal merits.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that all previous GLC money Bills were presented to the House after agreement between the GLC and the Government of the day? The hon. Gentleman will destroy what in the past has been a good working relationship because of his hatred of the GLC, which he has clearly portrayed tonight.

Mr. Thorne: The hon. Gentleman was not present at the beginning of the debate. If he had been, he would have heard that the GLC intentionally did not come to an agreement with the Government on the matter, which is why it is now running into difficulties.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman speaks as a former member of the GLC. He knows that discussions take place between GLC officers and the Treasury regarding the money Bill. It was not the GLC that withheld information from the Government about capital projects, upon which it wishes to spend money, but the Government who suddenly announced in May that they would seek cuts, after their discussions with the GLC since October.

Mr. Thorne: The GLC was given every opportunity to trim its budget in accordance with the Government's requests, but it failed to do so. If it behaves in that way, Conservative Members will take a serious view of that behaviour. That conduct would not be entirely surprising. It measures up to what we have come to expect of the GLC during the past three years.
That is also illustrated by the way in which the GLC has refused to co-operate with Government Departments in providing information on resources. That shows clearly that it intends to take on the Government in every possible sphere and that it believes itself to be above and beyond Parliament. That must be checked, which is why I support this instruction.
The GLC had an opportunity to put the matter right, but failed to do so. Therefore it has little reason to complain when the current proposals are blocked. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry) said, the GLC should come to Parliament for its

expenditure. It should tell Parliament what it needs, and Parliament should decide whether to approve the GLC money Bill.
I was one of the hon. Members who was approached by the GLC in 1980 and 1981 for support for the proposal that the GLC should have a separate money Bill. After considerable persuasion that the GLC should be treated as a special case, I supported the issue and spoke in its favour. I am glad to say that although the Minister was not too happy about giving way on that point, he was persuaded by his hon. Friends that it was right and proper to give the GLC its own money Bill, which is what it has. However, to expect the Bill to be endorsed year by year with a rubber stamp is to expect too much of this House.
Undeniably, some perfectly good schemes are covered by the figures before us today, but I suspect that some of them have been included so that Opposition Members can claim that those projects will be lost if the GLC does not get its way in all respects. That claim is entirely false, as I believe that a number of those worthwhile schemes will proceed in any case.
However, I take great offence at the comments of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who showed his pure vindictive self when he told the House what would happen to those hon. Members who voted against the Bill. If ever a speech showed how irresponsible GLC members can be, that was it. It shows how right the Government are in saying that the GLC no longer has a role.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government's attitude in constantly cutting the resources of predominantly Labour-controlled inner city areas through an iniquitous system of penalty clauses on grant-related expenditure formulae and through the rate support grant is itself a vicious act of political spite against the poorest people of this country and the poorest working-class districts in London?

Mr. Thorne: No, I do not accept that because it is not true.

Mr. Corbyn: Come and tell that to the people of Islington.

Mr. Thorne: I have been challenged before to come and say things in hon. Members' constituencies, and I have done so. As I have said, the Government must retain control of the economy and will continue to do so with the support of Conservative Members.
None of this, however, detracts from my comment about the vindictiveness of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West in describing what would happen to the constituencies of hon. Members who voted against the Bill. It is disgraceful to behave in that way in the House. I believe that is is an affront to Parliament and a challenge to the authority of the House. Indeed, I believe it could be claimed to be a matter of privilege, because hon. Members must be able to speak and vote without fear of vindictive behaviour from those with some petty control elsewhere. Such behaviour is utterly irresponsible. It brings the GLC into disrepute and it brings the behaviour of the friends of such an hon. Member into disrepute. I certainly shall not bow to such behaviour from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West or frorn any other hon. Member.

Mr. Tony Banks: I do not apologise for one word that I said, but I want the hon. Gentleman to know that I spoke


as an individual Member of this House and as an individual member of the Greater London Council. I do not apologise. I shall use my influence in just the way that I described.

Mr. Thorne: We have it again. The House has heard what the hon. Gentleman has to say. He is a man with a certain influence in the GLC and he is determined to behave in the way that he has described. That sums him and his colleagues up very well. We shall see whether his colleagues follow his example. If they do, we shall see how right and proper it was for the Government to seek to get rid of the GLC as soon as possible.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I detect a certain air of unreality in this debate. We have listened to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry) making a Front Bench speech from the Back Benches. The House is supposed to be considering private legislation, but the instruction is clearly a Government instruction. We await with interest the speech of the Under-Secretary of State, because only he can answer many of the questions asked by Opposition Members. We have heard honeyed words from the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate. He tells us that we do not need to worry too much, because the Treasury will use its discretion. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) quoted from a letter from Mr. Fletcher of the Department of the Environment, dated 4 May, which made it clear that only in exceptional cases will money under part IV be made available.
We are therefore deeply disturbed because we all know — as Conservative Members no doubt also know—of important projects in our constituencies which are likely to be damaged as a consequence of the instruction.
It is odd that the Government—this is a Government instruction—should think that it is necessary for the Treasury to crawl over projects which the GLC wants to set up. As all hon. Members know, capital projects suggested by local authorities have to be approved, by and large, by the relevant Government Department, whether the Department of Transport or the Department of the Environment, which will approve those projects presumably in terms of priority and various other considerations. I cannot therefore believe that the purpose of the instruction is anything more than to cut expenditure.
Some speeches from Conservative Members make it clear that they do not like the present leadership of the GLC. Many Opposition Members did not like the leadership of the GLC when it was under Conservative control. However, the Conservatives are reacting in a different way. They wish to limit the GLC's powers to operate as a democratic body, to abolish it, and to interfere with the money Bill that has been presented, or to refuse to negotiate on it in any sensible fashion.
Many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall be brief. I want to bring the debate down to the level of the ordinary London electors and the effect that the Government's action is likely to have.
There is an estate in my constituency which I believe will suffer particularly badly as a consequence of the instruction. It is called the Ferrier estate. The GLC is under a legal obligation to finance major repair and improvement

works required on dwelling stock which has been transferred from the GLC to the boroughs. Ferrier estate is in precisely that position. It was built by the GLC. The first tenants were moving on to the estate when I was first elected as hon. Member for Greenwich in 1971. Ever since then, that estate has been the subject of complaint and dissatisfaction from its 5,000 residents. People do not want to live there. Because of the serious problems arising from design and technical faults, they long to get away. All the sewers have had to be replaced and all the house drains must be replaced too. Major roof work is needed. There is no play provision. The third floor walkways are a nightmare which give no privacy or security to tenants. The underground garages are a design folly in that there is no protection from theft or vandalism of vehicles. The residents have had to put up with those problems for 13 or 14 years, but I am glad to say that in the past 18 months Greenwich borough council and the GLC have been working together to try to identify some of the major problems which have made the estate a disaster for so many years. The scale of the problem is well known to the Government, and has been for some time. One of the chief objectives of the GLC and Greenwich council is to give tenants on that estate an opportunity to decide what they regard as the priorities. One of the awful facts about large housing schemes that have been adopted in the past is that the people who move to an estate have had no say in how it is designed or what facilities are provided.

Ms. Harman: My hon. Friend will have heard the speech of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), who said that it is no good throwing money at such estates which suffer from chronic design faults. Does he agree that there is no chance of solving the massive problems on those estates and putting right the terrible design faults that make them uninhabitable without large sums of money—perhaps millions of pounds?

Mr. Barnett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as she has reminded me of the incredible remarks made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), who is no longer here. There is no means of improving the environment for people on the Ferrier estate except by spending money. It is easy for Conservative Members to talk about throwing money at the problem, but that is the last thing that Greenwich council or the GLC is doing. We have had long consultations with the tenants and are now ready to make major improvements on the estate.
I want to make one thing clear to the Minister, as it is a factor that has not been mentioned. At the beginning of the consultation exercise, tenants were completely uninterested and resigned to having to accept their lot for ever. They had been promised improvements before but had not got them, so they asked why should they believe that, this time, anything would be done or anything that they said would be listened to. The officers and elected representatives persisted in trying to persuade them that, at long last, because of the commitment of the Government, the GLC and the borough council, they were being given a chance radically to change their environment and to get some of the facilities that they badly need.
The only person that can tell me whether the estate is at risk is the Minister. If it is at risk, the result could be devastating social damage. Such hopes as have been raised on the estate and the expectations of its inhabitants because of constant assurances will be destroyed. I can envisage


the atmosphere there declining weekly as a result of these proposals if, as I believe, they imply a serious risk that commitments that have been made on behalf of the tenants are likely not to be honoured. I, Greenwich council and the GLC believe that the proposals have such an implication.
I could name other estates in my constituency or in the rest of the borough of Greenwich that are similarly affected. I know that the same is true for the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), and there must be dozens of other cases in the GLC area. If the moral and legal commitment entered into between the GLC and borough councils to recondition, upgrade and correct design faults in estates is not honoured, there will be a tragic loss of confidence in the ability of the Government and local government to do anything to improve the environment, reduce vandalism and enable people to live reasonably comfortable lives.
Whatever else I might say about the Ferrier estate, the interiors of many homes there are extremely pleasant. A great effort has been made by the tenants in many cases to make nice homes for themselves, but the environment and the design faults mean that it is often impossible for the elderly to live there; facilities are lacking for youngsters and families, and there is a very low state of morale. The letter which I quoted earlier implies that the money is at risk and will be spent only in the most exceptional circumstances. If that is the case, the greatest possible social damage will be done in London, damage that the Government and the Conservative party will rue. Whatever happens when the instruction is passed, I hope that we shall be able to return to this matter after the committee has met.
I have been handed this evening a petition signed by 718 people who live on the Ferrier estate. This petition was taken round only in the last three days, but there was no difficulty in obtaining signatures. It says that the residents
petition all Members of Parliament to ensure that the GLC has adequate resources in this financial year, 1984–85, to guarantee the spending of £2 million needed to carry out essential improvement works on this estate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): It may be convenient if I intervene at this stage to outline the Government's attitude to the Bill and to the instruction. I begin by echoing what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield. Southgate (Sir A. Berry) in commending the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). How the hon. Member for Holborn and St. pancras manages to reconcile his tribute to county hall today with the view he expressed a few years ago that it was the slowest bureaucracy this side of the Kremlin is a matter between him and his conscience.

Mr. Dobson: If the Minister were to consider that that remark was passed at the time I was trying to get Sir Horace Cutler's lousy, slow and awful GLC to start doing improvements on the Ossulston estate in my constituency, which it had failed to do for years, he would understand why I am doubtful whether there is a bureaucracy even the other side of the Kremlin as bad as that run by Sir Horace Cutler.

Sir George Young: The House understands the hon. Member's sensitivity on that quotation which we enjoy

using in the context of the debates on abolition. The view that he put forward this evening is understandable. He outlined a range of worthwhile social schemes, mainly, it appears, in Conservative constituencies. He made the case that if the instruction was carried those schemes would be abandoned.

Mr. Dobson: No.

Sir George Young: He implied as much. He was reinforced by his hon. Friends. The case he made was that where there is an identified need, and where the local authority wishes to meet it by capital expenditure, the Government should not intervene. That was the nub of the case.
I am not unsympathetic to the problems that we have heard about concerning the tenants on the Ferrier estate and other estates that have been mentioned. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is a generous man and that he would extend to other local authorities the same regime that he apparently proposes for the GLC. No Government, Conservative or Labour, could forgo the control of local authority capital expenditure and subsequently be held responsible for the conduct of the national economy. The capital expenditure of local authorities affects the use of resources, interest rates and personal taxation. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Government should simply accept whatever figure the GLC puts forward, while he may be a staunch supporter of local democracy, that philosophy has grave implications for parliamentary democracy.
The Government must reserve the right to control local authority capital expenditure. I hope that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras will deal with the remarks made in an intervention by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) who asked why the £25 million which the GLC has earmarked to purchase a leisure centre from Lambeth council could not be used to pay for some other schemes. If the hon. Member has the answer, we shall look forward to hearing it. I think that the sum involved would pay for many of the schemes at risk. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to explain satisfactorily why so many worthwhile schemes are to take second place to the purchase of a recreation centre.

Mr. Dobson: The council paid not £25 million, but £10 million. The sum was paid last year, so the money is spent.

Sir George Young: That is not a satisfactory reply because the council has an ability to carry forward unused capital expenditure from one year to the next. The hon. Gentleman must find a better answer if his remarks are to have any credibility.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate made an excellent speech. It was more closely related to the matters before the House than that by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. He explained in detail why the convention which has worked up until now has broken down. I shall explain the Government's views on the instruction later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) said that there was no reason to exempt the GLC from the disciplines imposed on other local authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr Jessel) rightly exposed the blackmail by the hon. Member


for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who took the view that, far from trying to meet need, the GLC should abandon schemes planned for constituencies represented by Conservatives. It would be equally logical, and unfair, for the Government to say that taxpayers in Newham should not have the benefit of tax reductions made possible by the Government's economic strategy because their Members of Parliament opposed the economic strategy. That would be totally unfair and wrong. We have no intention of doing that, but the hon. Member's views are equally illogical and unfair.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will be able to make his speech in a moment.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) tabled an amendment to the instruction. It would be odd for the House to instruct the Committee to determine the criteria to be used by the Treasury when considering applications by the GLC without giving the Committee guidance on the criteria that it might use.
My Department has already told the GLC the criteria that any Government would be bound to have in mind. The letter which has been quoted warned that Treasury consent to the use of part IV, in whole or in part, would not necessarily be forthcoming. The instruction of my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate sets out the level of spending which the Government believe to be appropriate. My Department's letter explained that the Government would be likely to change their view about the appropriate level of spending only if, for example, an additional allocation were agreed for the Thames barrier or if it were possible to obtain extra resources for local authorities generally. In view of that, it would be inappropriate to ask the Committee to draw up criteria.
The Treasury will consider applications carefully, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate said, but it must pay close attention to the level of local spending generally.
It has been alleged that the Department had adequate notice of the proposed capital expenditure level because of the GLC's announcement of its spending plans in November last year. The plans published last autumn were provisional capital spending plans, subject to consultation. I welcome such public consultation, but, by definition, the proposals were not final. It would have been wrong for the Department to act upon them as if they were. Indeed, the proposals for housing and transport expenditure were substantially lower when submitted to my Department responding to allocations submitted in December. It would have been a waste of time for us to consider proposals before they were firmed up—that is, until the GLC considered that the proposals were ready to send to my Department. The proposals were put to us in February and are before us in the Bill.
It is unprecedented in recent years for the GLC to come to the House without taking account of the Government's view of the appropriate level of spending, and I very much regret that the convention has not been maintained.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) expressed some surprise that there is a Whip on the Treasury Bench. There is always a Whip on the

Treasury Bench. They are part of the furniture. The Whips spend far more time in the House than members of the SDP-Liberal alliance.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I asked not why there was a Whip on the Treasury Bench but for an assurance that the debate was not the subject of intervention by Government Whips. I suspect that Whips will be present even on the Opposition Benches, although sometimes recently it has seemed as if the Whips do not exist.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friends have already answered the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question about whether a Whip was on tonight. The hon. Gentleman will have heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) said earlier. My hon. Friend, who is a former member of the GLC, outlined the convention that has worked well until now. As I have said, the convention broke down because the Bill was tabled on 25 April in a form that was known to be totally unacceptable to the Government. Indeed, the correspondence relating to it has already been referred to.
There is much about the GLC that the Government cannot support. We do not support its behaviour or attitudes or the profligacy of its current spending. We see no reason for the continued existence of a body that fails to justify the costs that it imposes upon our ratepayers. As hon. Members well know, we are proposing to bring a Bill before the House shortly to abolish the GLC, along with the metropolitan county councils, from 1986. Those are not, however, the issues before the House this evening.
We are concerned with providing for the GLC's capital expenditure during the present financial year and, to a lesser extent, in the first six months of the ensuing financial year, which, on our present plans would be the last year of the council's existence. The issue tonight is not whether the GLC is needed to carry out its limited remaining functions, but rather the need to provide for the level of capital spending that is appropriate for those functions still falling to the council.
The Government believe that the provision that the GLC seeks in the Bill is more than what is appropriate. My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate has already spoken about his instruction, on which we shall vote later this evening, and which asks the Committee to reduce the provision. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing forward proposals with which I find myself in complete sympathy. [Interruption.] It is a convention, honoured by all parties, that the Government do not table amendments to a private Bill. However, I am delighted that the figure that commended itself to my hon. Friend when he tabled his instruction bears a close resemblance to some of the figures in correspondence between my Department and the GLC.
In past years when the Government have made representations to the GLC about the level of its proposed capital expenditure it has reduced it, recognising that the Government have a role in fixing overall capital expenditure. This year, however, the GLC has not responded.

Mr. Spearing: Can the Minister refute the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that the levels of spending requested by the GLC were not remarkably greater this year than in


previous years? Will the Minister also deal with the point about the 52 per cent. discretionary expenditure before he completes his reply?

Sir George Young: The 52 per cent. figure was produced by the GLC. The reduction that we sought was £46 million, which is 9 per cent. of the £510 million proposed capital expenditure that was sought in the Bill. The 52 per cent. is the GLC's own figure. Whether the next year's figure is committed or discretionary, it is still money and makes claims on the resources of the economy. The Government must consider the totality of expenditure in any one year.
The GLC drew up its own plans internally, subsequent to the negotiations that I have referred to, as to how it might cope with such a reduction if necessary, and then came to the Government with a list of all the projects that would be unable to proceed. Indeed, we have heard about some of them tonight. But it is for the council itself to decide which projects it will proceed with and which not, within the provision that is available. The Government's chief interest is in the overall provision and we simply do not believe that the spending proposed by the GLC is affordable within the available national resources.
As to the surplus provision, I readily acknowledge that the undertakings that the GLC has given in previous years have held good. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate has said, it is not really logical or sensible to have a Bill that purports to say how much the GLC may spend on certain things but which actually contains figures that are quite different. Frankly, that is an unnecessary idiosyncrasy in a rather complicated system, and we should have removed it before now.
I welcome the instruction that my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate proposes should be given to the Committee, but opposition to the particular figures included in the schedule to the Bill should not mean opposition to the passage of the Bill as a whole. It would, in fact, create considerable difficulty if the Bill, whether in its present form or some amended form, did not pass.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has emphasised that, under the unique procedure that governs the Bill, the GLC is dependent on the approval of Parliament for all its capital expenditure and lending — including undeniably desirable schemes as well as some of the more dubious indulgences that we have heard about from my hon. Friends tonight. Therefore, it is important that the Bill should proceed, and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading. But thereafter I invite hon. Members to look very closely at the levels of spending that are proposed in the Bill. I commend to the House the instruction to the Committee and invite hon. Members to send the Bill to the Committee with a clear expression of the wish of the whole House as to the way in which it should be amended.

Mr. John Fraser: Before the Minister sits down, will he say what the Treasury's attitude will be towards any requests for approvals under part IV of the Bill?

Sir George Young: With respect, I explained at some length the position on part IV of the Bill. It was outlined in some detail in the letter that has been quoted, and I assume that the hon. Gentleman has it. The position is as set out in that letter, and in what I have just said, and I have nothing to add to those statements.

Mr. John Fraser: The Prime Minister has had many nicknames, such as the Iron Maiden and She Who Must Be Obeyed. She could be given one other nickname—Knight Nurse. On the Order Paper, an instruction stands in the name of a knight, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry), supported by a knight from Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), supported by another knight from Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), all of whom are of recent creation by the right hon. Lady. Indeed, she gives away knighthoods like some people give away valium tablets, in order to deal with problems of anxiety and stress on her Benches. Tonight, that has clearly paid off. Those three knights will be supported by other recent creations in the form of the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins), the hon. Members for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), and for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark), the former hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Sir A. Grant) and so on.

Sir Anthony Berry: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House just how many peers, who were once leaders of the GLC, voted with the Labour party last night in the other place?

Mr. Fraser: I cannot give the exact number, but the Prime Minister's recent creations make Harold Wilson look rather parsimonious in his patronage. The right hon. Lady's policy is clearly paying off.
There have been protestations about the fact that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate apparently produces stuff from the Treasury arid the Department of the Environment by means of extrasensory perception. I did not know that he could count up to £123 million before. It seems quite clear that there has been a shabby compromise between the hon. Gentleman and some of It s colleagues—although others have been left in ignorance — in order to put a case to the House that the Government did not dare to put themselves.
As I said in an intervention, the hon. Gentleman's record on such matters goes back some way. Perhaps he will tell the House in an intervention about an episode when he wrote to the Prime Minister, when Lambeth borough council wanted to develop a large area of land that had once been a children's home at Shirley Oaks in Croydon. That land would have provided many homes that were badly needed by Londoners particularly in the inner city. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will confirm that he wrote a letter to the Prime Minister in about 1981 urging her Government not to give any approval for that kind of housing development in Croydon in case it disturbed the political balance on the borders of Lambeth. That is one example of the kind of shabby arrangements which the hon. Gentleman is willing to enter into. The instruction to the Committee is a similar shabby conspiracy between stooge Back Benchers who are sort of sub-contracted hit boys tonight for the people who normally engage in the assassination of the independence of local government.

Sir Anthony Berry: I would never use the phrase "stooge Back Bencher" about any colleague in the House. I have been a Member of the House for 19 years, and I object strongly to that phrase. I ask the hon. Gentleman, as a decent honourable Member with whom I have had relations for many years, to withdraw that charge.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman has not had relations with me for many years, but if what I have said gives offence, I withdraw it. However, the hon. Gentleman is carrying a case from the Back Benches which ought to have been put in the first place from the Front Bench. Indeed, although I withdraw the word "stooge" if the hon. Gentleman finds it objectionable, the vocabulary of his speech was not that of a Back Bencher but of a Department of the Environment brief. It worried me because it confirmed some of the things tht I have been asking the Department of the Environment about for some time. He used words such as "the need for careful monitoring of local authorities' capital programmes during the coming year." That is the vocabulary of the Front Bench. He was using Department of the Environment words which are precursors of a possible moratorium on capital expenditure which is likely to be announced by the Government in the forthcoming year.
Outer London Conservative Members have put up this operation because of the open disagreement between the Government who want to abolish the GLC and the GLC because that way it is less embarrassing. The instruction means that less money will be available for the disadvantaged, the disturbed, ethnic minorities and those who are poorly housed.
Let me give some examples. A housing association scheme in a road which I share with the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) is to lose £800,000. It is hardly a militant, immoderate scheme to give £800,000 to the Hyde housing association for a development in Croxted road on the borders of the Norwood and Dulwich constituencies. That is not immoderacy, mindless militancy or irresponsibility; it is worthwhile for the people whom we both represent. But it could be put at risk by the instruction which is being put forward by the hon. Member for Southgate.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I hope that at some stage during the course of his speech the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us information about the Lambeth recreation and sports centre in the borough which he represents. Can he give us the increase in the costs, details of the deal with the GLC, and whether there is a sale-back arrangement in prospect and if so when it is to take place?

Mr. Fraser: I like doing this during every GLC debate. There are two former Lambeth borough councillors in the House who are partly responsible for that. One is the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and the other is the Under-Secretary of State who were Lambeth borough councillors in 1968. They were party to what turned out to be a scheme which makes Versailles look like a workhouse in cost terms. The Conservative council of Lambeth represented by two hon. Members here tonight, was sold a booby by a large construction firm which went to Conservative councillors in Lambeth and said, "We will build you a sports centre. Don't worry boys, we shall build it without any profit at all. It will just be a cost-plus contract." The Tories fell for it. Admittedly, the Labour council had to take the scheme over because it was unable to get out of it. The cost escalated. I agree that if Louis XIV had found himself in Lambeth instead of Paris and had wanted to spend a lot of money, he would have gone for the Lambeth sports centre. That expenditure occurred because of the profligacy, extravagance and bad judgment of people such as the Under-Secretary of State and the Government Whip.

Mr. Bottomley: The House knows all that. The questions that I put to the hon. Gentleman were: what was the cost of completing that centre? What has the GLC paid or agreed to pay for it? Does the GLC intend to sell it back to the Lambeth borough council? When will that deal occur?

Mr. Fraser: I do not know about the completion, because it has become almost a tradition that the centre is never completed. I believe that, at the last count, the capital cost was £12 million or £15 million, and the accumulated interest payable is high. In financial terms, the centre has proved to be a disaster, but the facility is likely to be used more widely than by the people from Lambeth. In the same way as the Crystal Palace sports centre is assisted by the GLC, assistance for the Lambeth sports centre will be provided by the GLC. Frankly, I do not know whether the GLC bought the centre, but it has turned out to be far more expensive than anyone anticipated. As the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) knows, we are both Lambeth ratepayers, and Ken Livingstone has done us both a favour by bailing us out of the misjudgments originally made by people such as the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. I am sorry to have been interrupted on those matters.
The effect of the instruction will be to put at risk housing association schemes shared by the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) and myself. It will put at risk £53,000 for a day nursery in Knight's hill in my constituency, where it is badly needed. The instruction will put at risk £105,000 for the Brixton neighbourhood community association for a scheme that would involve advice and training facilities and other welfare matters. That £105,000 was to go to a body operating at the heart of where the riots broke out in 1981. I can give many other examples in my constituency and others.
I shall concentrate on some wider matters. The cuts that will flow from the instruction amount, as many hon. Members have said, to 52 per cent. of all new capital start. That is bad news for London and for the construction industry. That is why the instruction should be withdrawn.
Another plan to be put at risk involves my constituency and those of many other hon. Members in which housing estates were compulsorily handed by the GLC to the London boroughs because of Government orders in 1982. The Tulse hill estate in my constituency could be affected. In the lead-up to the handover to those authorities, the GLC was forced to hand the estates to the boroughs, but the boroughs organised so as to get a commitment from the GLC and the central Government that there would be a 10-year improvement programme for the housing they were taking over. Otherwise, the position would be like the Brixton recreation centre in reverse — the GLC would be handing over an increasing financial burden to many hard-pressed and deprived London boroughs.
The GLC and the central Government made a commitment that the cost of improvements to the estates would be funded over 10 years by the GLC. The GLC willingly agreed to that plan. It is estimated that the cost of those renovations will be about £1,000 million. The only way in which that provision can be made in the proper time is by capital that has been raised by the GLC. If one looks only at the way in which the Government control housing expenditure in London, there is no way that those commitments can ever be met.
In 1984–85, the GLC sought the modest housing investment programme of £250 million, of which it budgeted to spend £152 million on the renovation of former GLC estates. Although it applied for £250 million, the Government allowed it £85 million on an HIP for all its housing needs, that being part of £1,000 million to be spread over 10 years for the renovation of its estates. With capital receipts, the GLC was able to put aside £91 million for estate renovation but the paucity of the money that it has been able to provide as a result of its capital programme and HIP allocations means that many thousands of Londoners living in former GLC estates will be under sentence to live in dull, damp and insanitary conditions, conditions that need to be improved. Some people are condemned to live on estates which have turned out to be like Dante's inferno.
The result of the instruction is to impose that sentence on many thousands of Londoners. The result of the instruction is to break a convention that was long established in the House. The effect of the instruction will be to break faith with many thousands who are poorly housed in London and who rely upon a commitment which was given by the GLC and the Government jointly. If the hon. Member for Southgate feels proud of that, he can feel proud of anything.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) spoke about the Ferrier estate. I hope that I shall be allowed to spend a short time talking about the estate, because for a time part of it was in my previous consituency of Woolwich, West. The hon. Gentleman and I, with the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), attended a meeting held by the Greenwich council and the GLC on the possible impact of tonight's business on improvements to housing stock transferred from the GLC to Greenwich.
I became the Member for Woolwich, West in 1975. I found that part of my constituency was part of the Ferrier estate, which contained 5,000 people and had for five years no post office, no pub, no church or chapel and no recreation facilities. There was nowhere within three quarters of a mile in which anyone could set up the smallest business. It was a sterile area which was lived in by many decent people who kept the inside of their homes in perfect order but who were condemned to live in a ghastly environment outside their own front door. Who condemned them to live in those conditions? It was the GLC.
The GLC was taking decisions on building programmes which were condemning Londoners to a miserable life. I have no doubt that we all take some blame for that. The idea of large-scale redevelopment was perhaps a bipartisan policy which was encouraged by successive Governments and implemented by successive GLC administrations. However, the lessons were obvious in 1975 and the present GLC administration came into County hall in 1981. We are talking about a programme which starts at least three years after that. If the programmes were of the highest priority, which I was arguing they were at the time when I was responsible, the GLC could have acted substantially more quickly.
One example of a possible GLC capital cut which was left out of the litany of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is the Rochester way relief road. The GLC and its friend, the Greenwich council, are now

saying, "If the instruction is passed, the Rochester way relief road"—it will bring great relief to my constituents in Eltham—"might not be completed as planned."
If the GLC had had the chance, it would have cancelled the Rochester way relief road, but it is now putting at forward as one of the highest priorities in its programme which is under threat by the instruction. The GLC's ability to swing round on a turntable within months if not years is amply demonstrated by that example.
We have heard, perhaps ad nauseam, about the democratic accountability of the GLC. Two issues followed from that. The first issue is the Lambeth sports centre. Throughout most of the debate there has been about 30 per cent. of the London Parliamentary Labour party in the Chamber. Not one of those Labour Members has given any substantial details of the proposed or past deal between the GLC and the London borough of Lambeth over the Brixton recreation centre.
If the GLC was democratically accountable, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who heard my original intervention, would have stood up and said those were the facts. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) who is promoting the Bill on behalf of the GLC, would have given the information straightaway. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) would also have been able to give the information. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) would have been able to give the advice to the hon. Gentleman who now seeks it. However, he will not get it from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, because he did not have the full information.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

That the Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill and any Motion for an Instruction relating to the Bill and proceedings arising from the Lords Message [11th May] relating to the Housing and Building Control Bill may continue until any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Orders of the Day — Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill (By Order)

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Bottomley: This is a deal which may amount to £10 million, or perhaps a gross £25 million, which may have taken place last year, or it may take place in future—a large deal whether it is £10 million or a greater sum—regarding which the London Parliamentary Labour party has not a clue as to what has happened. If the hon. Member for Newham, North-West can give the information to the House now, I shall willingly give way to him, but if he does not have the details I suggest that he stays where he is and sends me the information later.

Mr. Tony Banks:: I was out of the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) was speaking. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the matter he now raises relates to last year's capital expenditure, not to this year's. It is irrelevant to the consideration of the Bill.

Mr. Bottomley: So it turns out that the 10 members of the London Parliamentary Labour party did not know that a £10 million deal had been done last year.

Ms. Harman: My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said it.

Mr. Bottomley: It is no use the hon. Lady claiming from a sedentary position that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said it all along, because Hansard will show that he did not, and in the first 20 minutes of his speech he was unable to given any information about it. The claims to democratic accountability have been shown not to stand up to examination. This £10 million deal was hidden from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, and appears not to have been known to most people in London. [Interruption.] The shouts and cries from the Opposition Benches are a demonstration of trying to cover up their ignorance with noise.
I deal next with whether the GLC could use discretionary money for the high priority projects for which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West has promised to use his endeavours, as a Member of the House and as a member of the GLC, to penalise those voters who, after the last GLC election, elected Conservative members. I think that I summarise his diatribe fairly accurately.
If any Member of Parliament, or any member of the GLC, believes that he can go in for this kind of hybrid procedure, and say, "If you do not vote for us we shall not treat London-wide issues on a priority basis determined by need, but will do it according to the way in which you chose to vote in other elections," that demonstrates that the people of London have rumbled the Parliamentary Labour party in London and the GLC Labour party in London, and that is why last year they turned overwhelmingly to elect Conservative Members. That is why I suspect that the results which the Labour party gets in elections in London will get worse.
The more the hon. Member for Newham, North-West smiles when he finds that some of his remarks are picked up, the more he will discover that in matters concerning London he would do better to devote himself to the interests of London as a whole as a Member of Parliament, rather than to the interests of Londoners, partly determined by which way they voted. He offers the kind of threat to Londoners which I believe should be condemned by his Front Bench and by all who hear his words tonight or in the future.
I am willing to say to the people of Greenwich, who will suffer from living on the Ferrier estate and such places, that I shall make representations to the Department of the Environment and to the Treasury about the sort of schemes that are clearly of benefit, whichever way people vote, so that those schemes are approved.
It is reasonable for the Government to require the GLC to stop spending discretionary money and capital money on what might be called political jobs for the boys. The hon. Member for Norwood made fun of a letter about Lambeth building homes in Croydon. I do not know whether he has read the biography of Herbert Morrison, which showed that the whole plan of the London Labour party was to build Labour majorities into constituency after constituency. If that is all right for Morrison, it is all right for Lambeth and Croydon. We must have some balance in the way in which we deal with these matters.
We have heard about the £10 million for the Lambeth sports centre. We know about the £3 million to £6 million spent on Labour party propaganda on the future of the GLC. If it is high priority to spend money on capital

projects, the GLC should decide immediately to stop paying the political campaigns and to begin using that money — which it legally and legitimately can — on worthwhile projects within the London area. If it will not stop its paid campaign, we can only draw the conclusion that it believes that that is a higher priority than spending money on the practical schemes that it puts forward on a night like this when we are discussing London's needs and the way to meet some of the capital programmes.
I want to refer to two ILEA issues. The reason why ILEA spends more on heat and light per pupil than other authorities is that not one head teacher to whom I have spoken knows what his fuel bill is. They have no control over it. If we want to build inside lavatories at Henwick primary school, it is possible for ILEA to economise to pay for that.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras used the example of St. Mary's Roman Catholic primary school in my constituency. If he came to my constituency and read the local press, he would realise that that school is proposing to move to an old convent. The planning issue about the site of the school is not whether the children's lavatories should be indoors or outdoors, but whether the Co-op or Sainsburys should have permission to build on the site. If that is the best example that the GLC can use when briefing the hon. Gentleman, it should start again.
The GLC has the ability to spend about £500 million on its capital programme this year. If it cannot carry through some parts of that programme, it has a reasonable case either to adjust its priorities or to put a case to the Government. It could have had the money Bill passed without controversy if it had done a deal with the Treasury. But that required open discussion with the Treasury, which, clearly, the GLC would not have.
My right hon. and hon. Friends would be right to support the instruction and to continue to try to persuade the GLC to meet the needs of Londoners rather than the needs of the Labour party in London.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), like so many other Conservative Members, has displayed the political bias that animates the instruction put forward by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry). I wish that the Prime Minister had the same confidence as the hon. Member for Eltham when he spoke about the way that Londoners might react and said that there would be many Tory victories. If the Prime Minister had that confidence, the election for the GLC would be held and Londoners could make their choice.
The instruction is part of the Government's determination that more and more power should move into central Government hands. The disciplines that have been called for by Conservative Members are available. We should go ahead with the elections when they are due rather than having a paving Bill that prevents them from taking place and this would provide the discipline.
My concern about the instruction follows a number of other aspects of this Government taking power into their own hands and interfering with sensible planning at local government level. I take the typical example of another sphere where action similar to this instruction took place, the National Health Service. After only three months of last year, when estimates had been approved by the regional health authorities, the Government intervened


and cut budgets. Not only did they make cuts in my region of about £8 million to £9 million, but at the same time they decided the level of employment and how many redundancies should take place. It is because the instruction causes so much uncertainty that I hope that the House will not accept it.
I have a regard for the hon. Member for Southgate because of the time when he was the Friday Whip. I know something of the problems of a Friday Whip, having been one myself for some years. However, we are suspicious. Anybody who has been in the House for any length of time can recognise a brief being read. The hon. Gentleman read it admirably, although much too quickly, but the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northwood (Mr. Fraser) was correct. We recognised the brief and it would have been more honest if it had been read on behalf of the Government by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who is the Minister.
Like many other hon. Members, I shall express my concern on a constituency basis. The fact that £43 million will be subject to far more direct control without the opportunity of discussion means that there are a number of things in my inner city area that will be at risk. The GLC makes its decisions, whether they are approved of by hon. Members or not. There are people sitting on the GLC who represent my constituency and know what is going on. The dead hand of the Treasury knows nothing about my constituency—its members have computer-like brains. I remember a phrase used by the late Nye Bevin, who talked about desiccated calculating machines. I sometimes think that the Treassury is manned by desiccated calculating machines.
The real problems concern ethnic areas such as mine. As the House knows, 46 per cent. of the families in the London borough of Brent are black. That means that in areas such as Brixton, Toxteth and Harlesden we have big problems. The GLC has a continuing programme of one of the finest efforts to prevent the flaring up that is so possible to avoid racial tension. A few years ago the black community was able to start a project, which was supported by the Government to the extent of £600,000, by the GLC to the extent of £700,000, and by the local borough. There are now 19 co-operatives, small businesses being established at a disused London Transport bus depot, and all kinds of community projects are now initiated in a high rise blcok area which has been called a concrete jungle. It is such capital expenditure that the instruction is putting at risk. One cannot suddenly stop proceeding on schemes that have 10 years' growth rate by threatening that the capital that is necessary to keep it going will not be there.
I can give examples of the amount of capital expenditure that we received from the GLC last year. For example, we have the Vale Farm recreation centre, which received £240,000 and the Willesden sports centre, which received £282,000. In my area, when we get to July, some 80 per cent. of the school leavers will be black and, because of the high incidence of unemployment, these youngsters will be on the street and on the dole. Those two projects alone provide a social service. If they are put at risk, it more than puts at risk the building or facility. It will break into the heart of active community participation, especially when the economic position is serious. The sum

for the Harlesden People's Community Council — the heart of the Caribbean area—was £75,000. There is also the Stonebridge Community Nursery, which is necessary for young mothers going to work.
There are peripheral things in the capital expenditure provision, for example, the need in the transport division to stop the mugging of bus conductors in what is called the Kilburn triangle. The GLC requires cash for such a project, but nobody knows where that project will rank when Treasury officials decide to examine the £43 million, or which projects will no longer be available.
Since the Government came to power in 1979, they have made great play of the importance of voluntary work alongside the statutory obligations of local government and central Government. All hon. Members seek to promote the maximum amount of voluntary organisation, whether for the disabled or another sector of the community in need. Last year the GLC were able to give £867,000 from their capital funds to 44 separate organisations for capital buildings, which might be needed. As a result we received £2·4 million. For an inner-city area built up during the reign of Queen Victoria with many educational and housing problems, if any help, which the GLC in co-operation with the London boroughs can give, is put at risk, it wilt result in a calamity.
Hon. Members mentioned how this instruction could affect the rehabilitation and refurbishing of housing. In my constituency we are spending £30,000 a week for bed and breakfast for the homeless. The waiting list for council housing is 15,000. We have bodies such as the Paddington Churches Housing Association and the Brent People's Housing Association. The Paddington Churches Housing Association has a programme for 12 renovations, which will house some of those families, which costs £320,000 providing the GLC comes up with the cash. If the instruction is passed, will Kensal Rise not get its refurbished housing?
Kilburn also has inner-city problems. The Kilburn Central Improvement Area will require a considerable sum, which the London borough of Brent and the GLC are combining to provide. The housing lists cannot cope with more people, and if further inroads are made, it would be disastrous for the housing position.
Decisions should be taken at local level with local understanding and yielding to local pressures. That is where the money Bill of the GLC should be dealt with. The hon. Member for Enfield, South (Sir A. Berry) seeks to take into Whitehall and Government offices power from local hands, where it should be. Most of us are constituency Members and do our surgeries on Saturday mornings. We have to withstand many pressures. I thank God for the help of the GLC with my housing cases and the attempt to establish an integrated multiracial community. Without the capital building and other capital expenditure involved there would be riots instead of a harmonious community in my area.
Therefore, despite the assurances that we have heard, as an ex-Whip I have no doubt that the vote tonight on the instruction will no more be a free vote than the instruction was a sudden inspiration on the part of Conservative Back Benchers without any collusion or collaboration by the Department of the Environment or the Government. It is a squalid trick and I hope that it will be rejected.

Mr. Richard Tracey: It is an honour to fulfil my responsibilities as a Back-Bench Member by assisting in devising and tabling an instruction which I hope will receive wide support from my hon. Friends and perhaps from some Opposition Members.
I do not know whether I am supposed to follow the practice of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry) in congratulating the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on moving the Bill, but I am afraid that I cannot do so. Despite his constant reference to projects which "could" or "might" be at risk, the hon. Gentleman's speech was blatant scaremongering and the kind of gross overstatement that we have come to expect from him at times. Furthermore, it is arrogant to suggest to any hon. Member that we are here merely to rubber stamp proposals sponsored by the Greater London Council.

Ms. Harman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tracey: No. The hon. Lady will have her chance in due course and no doubt she will take it.
I was elected by my constituents in Surbiton to exercise such reasonable control as I could over expenditure. The Instruction tabled by Conservative Back Benchers attempts to exercise such reasonable control We do not intend to be parties to the kind of trade-off referred to by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras with the Department of the Environment, the Treasury and the GLC. We regard this as a very serious matter. That is why we put down the Instruction.
We have had a useful and lengthy debate on London matters. I am sure that the Opposition welcome that.

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tracey: Having listened to a very long speech from the hon. Gentleman, I intend to put my views as briefly as possible and to allow some of his hon. Friends to have their say.
The Opposition have suggested many times that when the GLC has been abolished London matters will not be fully and properly discussed in the House, as we believe that they will. Today's debate provided a good opportunity to discuss various matters of capital expenditure in a full, meaningful and informed way. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), however, that we have still failed to extract information on the deal done in Lambeth about the sports centre and I am dissatisfied about that. Indeed, I should be prepared to continue for many hours attempting to extract that information if I thought that we would actually obtain the facts that we seek. It is indeed possible to debate London matters in some depth and in a meaningful way, although we were requested at the beginning of the debate simply to follow the old practice — to do a trade-off and to rubber-stamp the Bill. My hon. Friends have no intention of doing that. We are simply following a line which, as I understand from a letter that I received yesterday from an officer of the GLC, is perfectly reasonable. He wrote on behalf of the director-general of the GLC and said:
Part IV of the schedule is a general contingency provision to meet, but only with Treasury consent, any further expenditure over and above the sum total of Parts I, II and III of the schedule".

There we are. This is a general contingency provision which requires Treasury consent. I welcome the fact that the Treasury will be able to exercise a view over part IV.
However, it is clear that the GLC will be able to put its arguments for the various capital requirements to the Treasury. If it makes a full-scale, perfect case, it will get the money. None of my hon. Friends would deny that the GLC will have a full chance to make a case. The GLC does not like to have to make a case. It would prefer people to accept bland statements and half-promises without challenge. The GLC will find that requests of that sort will not be granted by my hon. Friends tonight.

Ms. Harman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tracey: The hon. Lady will have her chance in a moment. We will listen to her as attentively as we always do.
The GLC will simply have to make a rather better case than it has in the past.
I have been in consultation with the leading Conservative members in County Hall, with whom we always work closely. I understand from them that there is plenty of scope for savings in what the GLC has included in the Bill. I will detail one or two of the suggestions. They may give Opposition Members, who may not have had the privilege of consulting my colleagues on the Conservative benches on the other side of the river, food for thought.
The GLC wants £10 million for the industry and employment policy. I understand that over £2 million of that is for training centres for the unemployed which will duplicate or even challenge the work of the Manpower Services Commission. There is no need to provide money to duplicate what the MSC is already doing.
Further capital is wanted for industrial developments which ought to be privatised. I know that privatisation is not entirely accepted by Opposition Members, but it is a real possibility for projects such as the Battlebridge Basin near King's Cross and, of course, the Wandsworth gasworks site which has become a fairly well-known landmark.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: What is the hon. Gentleman talking about?

Mr. Tracey: The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) is very vocal about such matters in the local papers. Although he has not been in the Chamber for long and may not have given the matter much thought, I look forward to hearing his views in the normal way rather than from a sedentary position.
Funding for community projects most of which are for bodies of which there has been much criticism or which are not genuine London bodies could be reduced by £400,000. One is the Ethiopian World Federation—very relevant to the citizens and ratepayers of London. The Greenwich Women's Centre is another. It is perfectly reasonable that Greenwich council might like to support that centre, but I fail to see why such capital expenditure should be provided by Greater London ratepayers.
The next item concerns grants to community area groups and docklands. I realise that this matter might be sensitive and touch the nerves of hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). It is becoming well known that such groups are becoming what might be described as surrogate Labour party supporting groups that do not fulfil the purpose that


they ought to fulfil. I had a useful letter this morning from a body that calls itself the Campaign for Homes in Central London—CHICL—which sets out some of the groups that might suffer from the instruction. One, from Hammersmith, is called People Before Profit. It does not sound as though it supports the objectives of the Conservative party. No doubt the hon. Member for Battersea will have something to say about the Battersea Redevelopment Action Group. Anyone who drives through Battersea will know that one of the most active operations of that action group—BRAG for short—is to spoil the scenery by flyposting every building and fence in Battersea. Apparently it might suffer from our proposals. Anoher is the Joint Docklands Action Group. I know of business men who are trying to redevelop docklands to bring wealth and enterprise to them. Apparently that action group does all that it can to frustrate, criticise and prevent such work.

Mr. Terry Dicks: Will my hon. Friend add to that list the community newspaper in my constituency, which has been arranged by the deputy leader of the GLC, so that an extreme left-wing case is advanced to ensure that he is selected as the parliamentary candidate in Hayes and Harlington at the next general election? That is a blatant misuse of ratepayers' money for his personal political ambitions.

Mr. Tracey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is perceptive on these matters. He seems to have stirred up a little private grief on the other side of the House.
The GLC's request mentions proposed new-build worth nearly £1 million. I am told by my Conservative friends on the other side of the river that that is unnecessary as the new-build programme should be with the boroughs or the private sector. I understood that housing responsibilities had been passed from the GLC to the boroughs, and rightly so. Another item is housing association acquisitions worth £1·5 million. I am told that that is also unnecessary as the housing Corporation is responsible for such matters. The South Bank development is unnecessary, pending a review of the operation of the South Bank and its proposed transfer to the Arts Council. I could give many more examples. They are solid reasons for Conservative Members believing that there is much irrelevant capital request in the Bill. It is the type of thing that the Treasury should examine as the Treasury has overall responsibility for the economy.
It is quite clear that, by tabling the instruction, Conservative Back Benchers have hit a raw nerve among Opposition Members. If they seriously thought that they would get a rubber stamp from us, they were much mistaken. I hope that my hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby to pass this instruction to the Committee.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Although one might not have thought it from the speech of the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), this Bill is about capital expenditure. The GLC has to come to Parliament to get authorisation for its capital expenditure. It is the only local authority that has to do so
It has been the practice since 1963 for talks and negotiations to take place between officers of the council and officials of the Department of the Environment. When agreement has been reached, the Government have assured

the passage of the Bill through the House. Of course, some Back Benchers have formally opposed the Bill to get a debate on London. That we all understand, but what is happening today is completely different. There was no agreement and the Government, by a completely transparent device of putting down a so-called instruction to the Committee, are opposing the Bill. They have succeeded in dragooning some of their Back Benchers to do their work for them. When I asked the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry) whether he was speaking for the Government or as a Back Bencher, he said that I would understand what he was doing. Of course, I understand completely. There is no precedent for what has happened. This is not what usually happens.
We have to ask why the Government are taking this step. It is because they are carrying out what I can only describe as a vendetta against London. They are giving full rein to their spite and malice. They have taken away over recent years many hundreds of thousands of pounds of rate support grant to London. This is the reason for the rate increases we have had. The enmity is now reaching hysterical proportions. This authoritarian Government cannot tolerate dissent. If the people of London have the temerity to vote Labour, then, in an act of petulance, the Government will abolish the GLC. If the public are likely at the next elections to vote against abolition, then the Government will abolish the elections.
The malice is being taken to further extremes. Effectively the Government are taking over the running of the GLC by taking control of the GLC's finances. They are acting as though they were already in charge and had already put their commissioners into county hall. The Government are making a pre-emptive strike. It is a form of pre-emptive abolition of the GLC. In effect the Government are imposing direct rule on the GLC's capital expenditure 12 months before the GLC is abolished. I find this behaviour appalling. There is not a scrap of justification for it. There is no claim of irresponsibility on the part of the GLC. In fact, the reverse is true.
I know it is not the custom in this House to quote speeches in the other place, but if Conservative Members would like to read the speech made by Lord Bellwin yesterday they will find that he almost thought of it as a dirty trick on the part of the GLC that it was not increasing rates but reducing them this year by 7·5 per cent. The Government are tearing up the rule book that has governed the conventions in these matters. They are saying that the GLC must break the commitments it gave when it handed housing over to the boroughs.
It is in regard to housing that the Government's policy has been most malign. Since 1979 public expenditure on housing has decreased by 50 per cent. Everyone, including even the Confederation of British Industry, is calling for an increase in capital expenditure as a way out of the recession. If we inject extra demand into the building and construction industry, we do not suck in imports. It is a labour-intensive industry. We make the materials, bricks and mortar at home and therefore capital expenditure on building and construction means more jobs and more employment. That aspect concerns my constituency which has been turned into a disaster area for jobs by the Government.
Mass unemployment in Newham is darkening the lives, blotting out the future and destroying the hopes of my constituents. Unless that is altered, it will cause the most terrible social problems.
In the East Ham jobcentre area in June 1979 male unemployment was 1,062. By February 1984 it had increased to 4,202, an increase of 400 per cent. For women the figures are worse. In June 1979 female unemployment was 328. By February this year it was 1,932, an increase of 600 per cent. In addition, there is a growing core of chronic unemployment. In October 1979 336 people were registered as unemployed for over a year. In January this year that figure was 2,052—an increase of over 600 per cent. In the borough as a whole 18,152 people are registered as unemployed. People are being permanently damaged. Something must be done if we are to avert a social breakdown.
Newham and many parts of London have appalling housing. It cannot be beyond the wit and intelligence of the Government to put the two problems together and to balance the unmet needs with the unused and wasted labour.
Instead of cutting capital expenditure on the building and construction industry, we should be doing the opposite. We should be encouraging the GLC to increase its capital expenditure on the building and construction industry. That would be good not only for London, but for the country and the economy. If the Government persist in this spiteful and malicious effort, one further nail will be put in their coffin.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: This Thursday the people of London will have an opportunity to vote. I do not think that anyone in London will rush to the polls out of concern for what is happening in European institutions, but will do so because of what is happening to their city. Government Members who claim that the Labour party is weak and has dwindling support will rue what happens on Thursday. The people of London will demonstrate that they do not want the right to vote for a city-wide authority taken away from them and that they do not want the powers that have brought such good things destroyed. That is what this squalid little move tonight is all about.
In the past the GLC has presented a money Bill to Parliament with Government agreement. Traditionally, that money Bill is agreed. Tonight we are not experiencing some odd-ball revolt by Conservative Back Benchers, but the opposite. We are experiencing a clearly orchestrated pre-emptive strike. The Government have not yet abolished the GLC, but they are trying to abolish the elections. Now they are trying to prevent many of the GLC's programmes from being carried out. I hope that the House will recognise that this nasty little move is an attempt to deny Londoners the things that they need. That is what a city-wide authority is all about. It provides for the needs of people in London.
A list of projects are at stake because of the threat to the GLC money Bill tonight. All of the projects are necessary. The majority involve housing schemes which are desperately needed. Housing causes the greatest problem for Londoners and it is also one of the prime regenerative moves possible in the economy. Housing schemes quickly put people back to work and create jobs in the construction and back-up industries. They are a crucial part of the regeneration of London's economy, and Conservative Members should remember that groups from

the construction industry are queueing up to take contracts from the GLC. They are queueing to get work from the GLC and borough councils and will be prevented from doing so only by the Bill.
Conservative Members should think carefully about who they are hitting when having a go at the Bill. The Government might not like the administration at county hall. We know that the Prime Minister does not like it. Not many Conservative Members are here to talk about it tonight. Perhaps they have all gone home. We can only pray and hope so. They are hitting the worst off, who are in desperate housing need.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) made a fundamental mistake in her speech. She did not seem to realise that the GLC did not borrow money for its programme last year for non-housing capital spending. Conservatives do not seem to understand what is behind the way in which the GLC operates or what the GLC is trying to do in promoting the money Bill. We have been shown an example of the spite that Conservative Members feel towards the people of London. Those hon. Members will suffer badly from such an attitude.
I have the privilege to represent Islington, North in the House. We have many serious housing problems. If public money is not spent on meeting the housing needs of people in my constituency, and in the neighbouring constituencies of Hackney and Islington, South, those who are not housed by the councils will not be housed at all. They do not have the freedom of choice to buy a flat or house, because they cannot afford to do so. The only way in which they can get decent housing is through public spending in the borough.
If a great deal of money is not put forward for housing capital spending in my constituency, and in neighbouring constituencies, the housing will get worse, families will continue to be broken up, bed-and-breakfast accommodation will return and many families will be forced to move out of the borough. Working-class communities will be split up, while wealthy gentrification appears in those parts of London. Perhaps that is what Conservative Members really want. If so, they should say so. Many people will take careful note of what is said in this debate and of what the Bill will achieve if it is passed.
The capital spending which the GLC proposes for my constituency amounts to well over £1 million, and falls within the Bill. If the instruction is passed tonight, much of that expenditure will be at serious risk and many people will continue to live in poor housing. I shall give three examples, one of which involves a relatively small amount of money — the expenditure of £90,000 on the rehabilitation of 52–55 Newington Green. It might seem irrevalant to Conservative Members, but that happens to be in a working-class inner-city area. It also happens to be the oldest block of terraced houses in London and might provide very good housing for people in desperate need. The redevelopment is very much wanted by local people and by the borough council.
We have two estates which have suffered from major technical problems since they were built. They were put up by a previous GLC administration, within the cost yardsticks imposed by the Government. Tenants have suffered major problems for many years on those estates, not untypical of the serious problems faced by many in London, where there has been rapid building, often of substandard accommodation by those who seem not to care very much about the conditions in which they are


forcing other people to live. The housing is inadequate in many ways. Often, too many people are put into those estates.
We need to consider whether it is the right way to build major housing schemes. Be that as it may, the Andover estate in my constituency has been plagued with problems of heating schemes and water penetration, as well as difficulties with the roofing and guttering, since the day that it was constructed. At the moment we are trying to get the whole heating scheme redesigned and rebuilt so that every house has heating and hot water. Conservative Members may not find this interesting, but presumably they live in very comfortable accommodation and are not concerned about the way in which others live.
We are concerned, and we feel that if the Bill is carried, with the instruction attached to it, the possibility of improving that estate will be swept away and the hopes of many of those on that estate will be destroyed. Conservative Members will have done that to people on the Andover estate, purely because the people of London had the temerity to elect a Labour GLC in 1981. That is what all this is about.
Another large housing estate, the Elthorne estate, was also built by the GLC. It is near the Archway junction, close to the Upper Holloway road. Again, major improvements are urgently needed and earmarked. Indeed, £200,000 is due to be spent on that estate. It is crucial that that money is made available so that the work can be done and those tenants can have somewhere decent to live. If that work on improving windows and joinery on that estate is not carried out it will form part of a cycle of decline, which can be arrested only by a lot of public expenditure on that housing scheme. That story can be repeated throughout London.
There are other schemes that will be at serious risk if the instruction is carried and the House is then forced to consider reducing the amount of money available to the GLC. One of those schemes is in the neighbouring constituency of Hornsey and Wood Green. I mention it because the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) does not appear to be here this evening.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon.

Mr. Corbyn: I see that the hon. Gentleman is here, and he is welcome. I refer to the expenditure of £55,000 on the Asian centre in Hornsey and Wood Green. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will consider his commitments to the Asian community in his constituency and oppose the instruction. I am sure that he would not want to see the GLC unable to spend the money on that community.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I understood that we were discussing capital expenditure. I happen to know a little about the hon. Gentleman's constituency as well. The Elthorne estate has been constructed within the past few years. He talks about trouble to the windows and frames, but he must look to the GLC to understand why there was such shoddy construction in the first place. In any case, he is talking about maintenance and repairs, which do not form part of capital expenditure.

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman has much experience of local government, ministerial office and membership of the House, and he should, by now, know the difference between revenue and capital spending. If he

does not, there is little hope le ft for him. As he clearly does not know, I shall have to explain once again, since he has now joined us.
The construction work that has to be done on the Elthorne estate is capital spending, and involves the replacement of windows and joinery work. The building work was inadequately done by a private enterprise construction company. Indeed, I am told that Laings was involved. The work was clone inadequately by that company. I accept that the estate was constructed by the GLC, but the attitude displayed by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green merely demonstrates his contempt for the people who live on that estate, and his failure to appreciate that if public money is not spent there and on hundreds of other estates throughout London the quality of housing stock will deteriorate, the housing conditions of thousands of people will decline, and he will be responsible for that. That is what is going on tonight. Conservative Members are merely showing their contempt for council tenants.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Rubbish.

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman may well say that, and I am glad that he is in the Chamber so that he can hear what is said. Hon. Members will be closely watched, and I hope that those in the hon. Gentleman's constituency will understand what his attitude is towards housing needs in London. The case that has been presented to us by Conservative Members represents a disgraceful attempt to prevent Londoners from achieving a modicum of decent housing, improved community facilities and an improvement in community relations as a whole. The Government are showing what is in store for London if they get their way and the GLC is abolished. This kind of squalid little move by Conservative Members to prevent people in London enjoying decent housing is exactly what will happen to every other service throughout London if the GLC is abolished.
I trust that the Government will recognise that in the past there has always been agreement before the Greater London Council (Money) Bill is presented to the House and that when it has been presented it has been carried. As the Government have tried at the last minute to change the rules of the game and prevent the Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill going through, I hope that they will advise their Members to withdraw the instruction and allow the Bill to go through unamended.

Mr. Chris Smith: The crucial point, which I fear the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry) was rather disingenuous about in the way in which he presented it to the House, is that the instruction which he wishes the House to pass does a simple thing — it transfers a large quantity of capital expenditure into part IV, thereby bringing it under Treasury supervision. When he said that the money would still be in the Bill, he was being disingenuous. Of course we know from the discussions which the Treasury has already had with the GLC in preparing the Bill that it has made it plain that expenditure under the heading of part IV will be examined extremely thoroughly, rigorously and moreover is unlikely to be approved. Any items of expenditure which are transferred by this instruction which the Conservative Back-Bench Members supposedly wish us to accept will be at risk.
This is the same Government who only 18 months ago were pleading with local authorities to expand their capital expenditure programmes. They were desperately urging every local authority, including the GLC, to come up with extra schemes for expenditure which could be put into their capital programmes. They were encouraging the spending which now they are saying should not be incurred. That is clearly a crazy way of running the desperately needed capital programmes for our capital city.
My second point has been made by many hon. Members, but it is of great and particular concern to me and my constituents. Many valuable and needed schemes will be at risk and under threat because of the instruction which the House is being asked to pass. I note three in my constituency. The first is a scheme of new build housing by the Metropolitan housing association just off Essex road. It is a special needs housing scheme which is being proposed through GLC finance and the acquisition of the land is under threat if the Bill does not go through as it stands.
The second scheme is a programme of environmental improvement on the Barnsbury estate, an estate of some 800 dwellings which is in a shoddy run down condition. It desperately needs the improvements which have been proposed, which have been thoroughly discussed with tenants on that estate and which have been agreed and welcomed by them and for them on which they are now waiting for work to start.
The third and most important scheme because it represents £900,000 of capital expenditure is on the Percival estate, another ex-GLC estate transferred to the borough. A scheme of improvement work for one of the blocks on that estate has been petitioned for by the tenants for many years. They are desperately anxious to see it come into being, and now it is under threat after it has finally been agreed by the GLC, the tenants and the borough.
Because of the action of Conservative Back Benchers, who know nothing of the Percival estate, the needs of its tenants and the conditions under which they are living, the improvement is at risk and under threat. I shall know simply and clearly where to put the blame when the tenants of that estate come to me to complain about the conditions in which they are living and homeless people complain about the lack of adequate accommodation into which to move. The blame will lie strongly with those hon. Members who support the instruction and who want to send millions of pounds of capital spending away from the people of London, including my constituents, who desperately need it. That is precisely were I intend to put the blame loudly and clearly.

11 pm

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I apologise for the fact that I was unable to be present for the earlier part of the debate, but there were some urgent matters in my constituency. I came into the Chamber, however, in time to hear the Under-Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey). The hon. Member for Surbiton must be one of those Conservative Back Benchers who were dragged out of the woodwork to do the bidding of the Department of the Environment, to sign this instruction and to make a speech that was compounded of error and

misunderstanding. I would not normally waste the time of the House in refuting his points, but they were so erroneous that I should do so. The hon. Gentleman can wave his arms as much as he likes.
The hon. Gentleman got hold of a press release for the Campaign for Homes in Central London. He proceeded to attack a number of organisations as though they were recipients of money under the terms of the Bill. In fact, he was reading a list of press contacts of organisations that were involved in preparing the handout. He did not even have the grace to admit that that was what he was doing. The hon. Gentleman was prepared to attack some of those organisations. He accused one organisation in Battersea of sticking labels on various lamp posts, or whatever, without realising that the document was purely a list of press contacts and that the rest of the release was concerned with the capital expenditure in the Bill.
I wondered how anyone could be so mistaken in making a speech. On looking at "Dod's Parliamentary Companion" I saw that the hon. Gentleman has a claim to fame, because, among a long list of accomplishments, his entry states:
Presenter Mrs. Thatcher's Election Rallies April and June 1979.
Everything became clear. The truth had gone out the window then as it did in his speech. I shall return to some of his specific points about particular projects.
The Government are so embarrassed at the popularity and success of the GLC and the ILEA that in two short years they have converted the GLC from a moderately popular authority into the most popular and well-known local authority. Conservative Members are in such a sulk about the matter because they cannot take it. They do not realise that what they have done is the direct consequence of the Government's policies. They are, therefore, seeking a back-door method of undermining the GLC and of anticipating the measures of the next Sesson to abolish it — if they get that far — by undermining the capital budget that the GLC is putting forward.
Conservative Members know perfectly well that, in past years, that capital programme has been the result of negotiations between the GLC and the Government, and every year until this year those negotiations have worked their way to a sensible and balanced conclusion. This year the Government wanted to have a further go at the GLC, and no such agreement was possible because of their attitudes. The result is that we have an impasse with the GLC putting forward a series of sensible proposals for the benefit of the people of London and the Government deliberately seeking to undermine those proposals. I shall mention briefly one or two schemes which have not been referred to so far. I am genuinely fearful of the consequences of the major cuts that will take place in the plans for services in my constituency and many others if the instruction from the Tory Back Benchers is agreed to.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene——

Mr. Dubs: I hope that it is not the Lambeth issue again.

Mr. Bottomley: No it is not. I am sorry that the Lambeth example is such an embarrassment to the Parliamentary Labour party. Is there one item which the GLC has dropped from its original proposals, or does the money Bill contain everything that it thought of without exception? The hon. Gentleman has referred to the normal


give and take with the Treasury and I should like to know whether there has been any give in the GLC's capital programme.

Mr. Dubs: I am not sure whether that is a meaningful question. We are not concerned with the long and detailed processes by which the GLC goes through its budget proposals and its internal thinking. If the hon. Gentleman had been interested in the issue that is the background to his question, the GLC officers would have answered his questions. The services of those officers have been at his disposal for many months. Either he asked the questions and he knew the answers or he did not bother to ask them.

Mr. Bottomley: I knew the answers.

Mr. Dubs: If that is so, why did the hon. Gentleman ask a question instead of telling the House of his information? He is wasting the time of the House.
We are concerned about a series of proposals that are sensible and in the interests of the people of London. It is a sad reflection of what is going on that many proposals were lost in the course of the GLC's thinking. I cannot give a list because I have been interested in what has been before us and not in what might have been before us. I am anxious to discuss the Bill as it has been presented to the House. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) is playing party political games in his antics and has been doing so for most of the time that I have been in the Chamber.
In my constituency there will be cuts in the plans for various schools. There will be a series of unfortunate cuts in proposals by various housing associations that serve my constituency. That will happen in a borough in which there is virtually no local authority housebuilding taking place and where there is a massive sale of council housing that is not confined to sitting tenants. The sale extends to empty council houses that are being sold to those who are not on the waiting list and who are from other boroughs. There is a major housing crisis in Wandsworth which some of the associations' schemes might do something to alleviate. Those are the sort of schemes that will go out of the window.
The hon. Member for Surbiton muttered something about the Wandsworth gasworks site and the proposal to have a solid waste transfer station. That is part of the GLC's proposal to dispose of refuse from a large part of the adjoining areas north and south of the Thames. Part of the proposal is the expenditure of £6·3 million on providing proper access to the solid waste transfer station. Whatever local arguments took place over the location of the station, a decision has been made. The proposal is before us but we cannot make the station operate without providing sensible access to it.

Mr. Ernie Roberts: In addition to the schemes that my hon. Friend will mention and others which have been mentioned which will be affected by the cuts, there are the cuts that will take place in Hackney, an area which suffers from numerous problems and where many schools will be affected, such as William Patten, Stoke Newington, Harrington hill, Craven park and Clissold road, which are only a few examples. The schools will be affected and the children will suffer as a result.

Mr. Dubs: I shall be brief and draw my remarks to a close. However, I shall mention two or three schemes in

constituencies that are represented by Conservative Members and who will have to be answerable for the consequences if they vote to kill, in effect, the schemes.
In the adjoining constituency of Putney—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, is not in his place — there are various schemes to improve the Alton estate and to provide support for the Threshold housing association which will have go by the board. There are schemes of work for three nursery classes at Sheringdale, Riversdale and Huntingfield schools, and proposals dealing with Southfields school. In the wider area, there is a number of schemes of major concern, I think, even to Members who do not represent that constituency. In Kensington, there is a scheme under the heading of industry and employment for 35 units that will provide 150 jobs in the Ladbroke area. There are schemes to provide training centres in north and west London to assist in the training of some 360,000 unemployed in the Greater London area. In Harrow east, there is a proposal to provide for the purchase and renovation of a building for a battered women's refuge for the Pakistan welfare association. Finally, there are proposals in Ilford for the purchase of a Hindu centre.

Sir Anthony Berry: When I moved the motion, I said that there is money available for all those schemes, if those responsible in the GLC are prepared to spend money on them. The money is there. Why do they not spend it on the schemes?

Mr. Dubs: That is not so. If the GLC is obliged to cut its spending on capital by more than £40 million, some schemes will have to go. If they are not the schemes which my hon. Friends and I have been quoting, other schemes will have to go. If the hon. Gentleman would care to put in bids for other capital projects that will have to go, instead of the ones that we have mentioned, it is up to him to put forward his alternative proposals. I am describing the schemes that are the most likely to suffer as a result of the instruction that he and his hon. Friends have put forward. [Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Gentleman continuing to shout from a sedentary position. I am prepared to give way, although the hour is late.

Sir Anthony Berry: The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that those would be the schemes. That is a different argument.

Mr. Dubs: I am not sure that the difference regarding the ones that are most likely to be chopped is all that significant. The House is discussing a proposal by Conservative Members to force major cuts in the GLC's intended capital programme. Those cuts have to come from somewhere. My hon. Friends and I have put forward the various schemes which are most likely to go for the chop. If the hon. Gentleman has an alternative set, he ought to put it forward.
We have acted in good faith, we have discussed with the GLC elected members and officers how they would react to this instruction, if it were to go through, and they have come forward with the schemes that we have mentioned. Whatever the cuts are, whether they are those that the GLC fears it would have to make, or the ones that Conservative Members would like to make for it, it is the people of London who will suffer. It is up to us to make it clear to the people of London that it is Conservative


Members who are intending to punish the people of London, who do not like the people of London and who do not care for schemes which are to the well-being of the people of London. We have made that point crystal clear to Conservative Members and to the people of London tonight.

Mr. Dobson: I shall try to reply to the limited number of specific points that have been made by Conservative Members.
Although the House has been told by some Conservative Back Benchers that this is in some way a spontaneous uprising, it seems about as spontaneous as the crowd that turns up in Red square on May day, because it has been contrived by those in charge of the party.
The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) said that he came to the debate not to be a rubber stamp. He was a rubber stamp this time last year. Faced with spending proposals by the GLC and the ILEA, at almost exactly the same level he never said a word, and he did not vote against the proposals, because no hon. Member did. All that has changed is that this nasty and vindictive Government have encouraged him and his hon. Friends, fondly so-called, to start putting the boot into the GLC and into the ILEA.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) raised one or two specific matters. He said that the future location of St. Mary's Roman Catholic school in his constituency was in doubt and that it did not, therefore, need outside toilets. I did not refer to outside toilets—I said that the school was proposing a nursery class. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the nursery class is not necessary, there are many schemes on which the ILEA could happily spend that money. He has not consulted locally, but is spontaneously offering that sacrifice to the Prime Minister to make himself a little more popular. He will have to answer to the electors of Eltham for that
The hon. Gentleman repeatedly spoke about the future of the Brixton recreation centre. Following the information supplied by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), I gained the impression that the Minister wished that his hon. Friend had not raised that matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood said, Tory Members were responsible for initiating that scheme, thus lumbering the ratepayers with a cost of about £25 million. I explained that the money spent on the Brixton recreation centre could not be spent on any of the schemes this year because that money had been spent last year. That was not sufficient for the Minister. He must be suffering from brain damage from having to explain these matters to the Secretary of State. If he cannot understand that, when discussing future capital project, money spent last year is of no relevance, his grasp of matters is disappearing.
The hon. Member for Eltham, who persistently raised the issue, went to the GLC officials who have been present all night to find out the facts. Any hon. Member is entitled to do that. They told the hon. Gentleman that the centre cost £10 million and that that had already been spent. Yet he suggested that we did not know what we were doing. He suggested that I was remiss in not identifying instantly, during a debate on future GLC expenditure, any scheme from the £600 million expenditure already gone and give

him an answer. He must know that the tradition has always been that an hon. Member introducing a measure tries to reply to the points raised. I hope that I have now replied to the hon. Gentleman's point satisfactorily.
The hon. Member for Surbiton, whose charm matches his ignorance, said that he was prepared to stay here all night until he had an answer about the cost of the Brixton recreation centre. He said that he had spoken to his friends at County Hall about other matters. It is a pity that he did not talk to them about the Brixton recreation centre. Far from the figures being secret, they were in a committee document in March this year. There was nothing to hide. Even the hon. Member for Eltham, who is obsessed with the centre, and the Minister could have looked up the figures. They did not do so because they wanted to make misleading cheap-jack points rather than addressing themselves to the matters before us.
The GLC was proposing to spend the same amount on capital expenditure this year as it spent last year. The Government had no objections last year. The ILEA is also proposing to spend about the same amount as last year on exactly the same sort of projects. They were acceptable to the Government last year. If we suggested to the government that the economy is in ruins and we need restraint on capital expenditure, they would say that we were raising all sorts of untrue harum-scarum scandals. If the Government are saying that there is nothing wrong with the economy and that that there is nothing different about the schemes that are before us tonight, all that they are saying is that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) is pursuing her vendetta against the GLC and ILEA. That is a disgraceful vendetta, for which she will pay at the ballot box, and I do not mean just generally in the country or just generally in London, I mean at the ballot box in Finchley. With that happy thought, we leave her.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should—

(a) provide for a reduction of £123,000,000 in the aggregate amounts in column 2 of Parts I, II and III of the Schedule;
(b) provide, if the Promoters so request, for an increase not exceeding £123,000,000 in the amount specified in column 2 of Part IV;
(c) have regard to any proposals which may be made by the Promoters for the apportionment of the reduction among the several items in Parts and for the apportionment of the increase, if any, between the items in Part IV, or, if such proposals are not put forward by the Promoters—

(i) reduce the amounts in column 2 of item 5 in Part II and of item 10 in Part III to £25,000 each;
(ii) reduce the remaining amounts in column 2 of Parts I and II by 7·49 per cent., rounded to the nearest £1,000 above; and
(iii) apply 2·63 per cent. of any increase to be made in column 2 of Part IV, rounded to the nearest £1,000 above, to item 11(a) and the remainder to item 11(b); and

(d) make such consequential amendments as are necessary.—[Sir Anthony Berry.]

Amendment proposed thereto, in paragraph (c) (iii), after 11(b) insert,
'(d) take evidence and determine the criteria that should be applied by Her Majesty's Treasury when consenting to or dissenting from any application made by the


Promoters under section 6 of the Bill in respect of any additional sums transferred to Part IV of the Schedule under paragraph (b) above.'.—[Mr. Spearing.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 75, Noes 153.

Division No. 360]
[11.20 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Kirkwood, Archy


Ashdown, Paddy
Lamond, James


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Litherland, Robert


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Loyden, Edward


Barnett, Guy
McCartney, Hugh


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Beith, A. J.
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Bell, Stuart
McKelvey, William


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
McTaggart, Robert


Bermingham, Gerald
Marek, Dr John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Maxton, John


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Meacher, Michael


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Mikardo, Ian


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Parry, Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Pike, Peter


Corbyn, Jeremy
Prescott, John


Cowans, Harry
Randall, Stuart


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Craigen, J. M.
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Deakins, Eric
Rooker, J. W.


Dixon, Donald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Dobson, Frank
Sedgemore, Brian


Dubs, Alfred
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Eastham, Ken
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Skinner, Dennis


Fisher, Mark
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Spearing, Nigel


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Strang, Gavin


Garrett, W. E.
Wallace, James


Gould, Bryan
Winnick, David


Harman, Ms Harriet



Haynes, Frank
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Mr. Harry Cohen and Mr. Ron Leighton.


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)



Howells, Geraint





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Amess, David
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Tom
Chope, Christopher


Ashby, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Conway, Derek


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Coombs, Simon


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cope, John


Bellingham, Henry
Couchman, James


Benyon, William
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Berry, Sir Anthony
Dicks, Terry


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dorrell, Stephen


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dover, Den


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dunn, Robert


Bottomley, Peter
Durant, Tony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Emery, Sir Peter


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Evennett, David


Bright, Graham
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Brinton, Tim
Fallon, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Farr, John


Bruinvels, Peter
Favell, Anthony


Bulmer, Esmond
Fookes, Miss Janet


Burt, Alistair
Forman, Nigel


Butcher, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Cash, William
Goodlad, Alastair





Gow, Ian
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Greenway, Harry
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Harris, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hayhoe, Barney
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Heddle, John
Sims, Roger


Henderson, Barry
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Howard, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Spencer, Derek


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Jessel, Toby
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Key, Robert
Squire, Robin


Lang, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lester, Jim
Steen, Anthony


Lightbown, David
Stern, Michael


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Macfarlane, Neil
Stradling Thomas, J.


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Sumberg, David


Maclean, David John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Major, John
Terlezki, Stefan


Malins, Humfrey
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Maples, John
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Mather, Carol
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Mellor, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Tracey, Richard


Moate, Roger
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moynihan, Hon C.
Waddington, David


Murphy, Christopher
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Needham, Richard
Walden, George


Neubert, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Newton, Tony
Waller, Gary


Norris, Steven
Watts, John


Onslow, Cranley
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Ottaway, Richard
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Page, John (Harrow W)
Whitfield, John


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wolfson, Mark


Parris, Matthew
Wood, Timothy


Patten, John (Oxford)
Yeo, Tim


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Powell, William (Corby)



Powley, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Raffan, Keith
Mr. Martin Stevens and Dr. Ian Twinn.


Ridsdale, Sir Julian



Roe, Mrs Marion

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 74.

Division No. 361]
[11.32 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Bruinvels, Peter


Amess, David
Bulmer, Esmond


Arnold, Tom
Burt, Alistair


Ashby, David
Butcher, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Cash, William


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chapman, Sydney


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Chope, Christopher


Bellingham, Henry
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Conway, Derek


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Coombs, Simon


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cope, John


Bottomley, Peter
Couchman, James


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dicks, Terry


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dorrell, Stephen


Bright, Graham
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J,


Brinton, Tim
Dover, Den


Brooke, Hon Peter
Dunn, Robert






Durant, Tony
Patten, John (Oxford)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Emery, Sir Peter
Powell, William (Corby)


Evennett, David
Powley, John


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Raffan, Keith


Fallon, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Farr, John
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Favell, Anthony
Roe, Mrs Marion


Fookes, Miss Janet
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Forman, Nigel
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Sayeed, Jonathan


Goodlad, Alastair
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Gow, Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Greenway, Harry
Sims, Roger


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Harris, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hayhoe, Barney
Spencer, Derek


Heddle, John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Henderson, Barry
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hirst, Michael
Squire, Robin


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Howard, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Stern, Michael


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Jessel, Toby
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Key, Robert
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lang, Ian
Sumberg, David


Lester, Jim
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lightbown, David
Terlezki, Stefan


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Macfarlane, Neil
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Maclean, David John
Thurnham, Peter


Major, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Malins, Humfrey
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Maples, John
Tracey, Richard


Mather, Carol
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Waddington, David


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mellor, David
Walden, George


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Waller, Gary


Moate, Roger
Watts, John


Moynihan, Hon C.
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Murphy, Christopher
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Needham, Richard
Whitfield, John


Neubert, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Newton, Tony
Wood, Timothy


Norris, Steven
Yeo, Tim


Onslow, Cranley
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Ottaway, Richard



Page, John (Harrow W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Mr. Martin Stevens and Dr. Ian Twinn.


Parris, Matthew





NOES


Alton, David
Barnett, Guy


Ashdown, Paddy
Beckett, Mrs Margaret


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Beith, A. J.


Banks, Tony (Newharn NW)
Bell, Stuart





Bermingham, Gerald
Loyden, Edward


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
McCartney, Hugh


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McKelvey, William


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McTaggart, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Marek, Dr John


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Maxton, John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Meacher, Michael


Corbyn, Jeremy
Meadowcroft, Michael


Cowans, Harry
Mikardo, Ian


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Craigen, J. M.
Parry, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Pavitt, Laurie


Deakins, Eric
Pike, Peter


Dixon, Donald
Prescott, John


Dobson, Frank
Randall, Stuart


Dubs, Alfred
Richardson, Ms Jo


Eastham, Ken
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Fisher, Mark
Rooker, J. W.


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Sedgemore, Brian


Garrett, W. E.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Gould, Bryan
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Harman, Ms Harriet
Skinner, Dennis


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Haynes, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Strang, Gavin


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Wallace, James


Howells, Geraint
Winnick, David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Kirkwood, Archy
Tellers for the Noes:


Lamond, James
Mr. Ron Leighton and Mr. Harry Cohen.


Litherland, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should—

(a) provide for a reduction of £123,000,000 in the aggregate amounts in column 2 of Parts I, II and III of the Schedule;
(b) provide, if the Promoters so request, for an increase not exceeding £123,000,000 in the amount specified in column 2 of Part IV;
(c) have regard to any proposals which may be made by the Promoters for the apportionment of the reduction among the several items in Parts I-III and for the apportionment of the increase, if any, between the items in Part IV, or, if such proposals are not put forward by the Promoters—

(i) reduce the amounts in column 2 of item 5 in Part II and of item 10 in Part III to £25,000 each;
(ii) reduce the remaining amounts in column 2 of Parts I and II by 7·49 per cent., rounded to the nearest £1,000 above; and
(iii) apply 2·63 per cent. of any increase to be made in column 2 of Part IV, rounded to the nearest £1,000 above, to item 11(a) and the remainder to item 11(b); and

(d) make such consequential amendments as are necessary.

Orders of the Day — Housing and Building Control Bill

Lords Amendment to one of the Amendments made by the Commons in lieu of a Lords Amendment; a Lords Reason for insisting on a Lords Amendment and disagreeing to the Commons Amendments proposed in lieu; and a Lords Reason for disagreeing to certain other Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments, considered.

Clause 1

EXTENSION TO CERTAIN CASES WHERE LANDLORD DOES NOT OWN FREEHOLD

The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 2, line 5, to which the Commons have disagreed, and they agree to the following amendment proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof:

In page 83, line 20, at end insert—
(4) Where. in the case of a tenancy to which this subparagraph applies, the tenant or the tenant under a sub-tenancy directly or indirectly derived out of the tenancy exercises his right to acquire the freehold under Part I of the said Act of 1967, the price payable for the dwelling-house shall be determined in accordance with section 9(1A) of that Act notwithstanding that the rateable value of the dwelling-house does not exceed £1,000 in Greater London or £500 elsewhere.
(5) Sub-paragraph (4) above applies to—

(a) a tenancy of a dwelling-house which is a house which is created by a grant of a lease in pursuance of chapter I of Part I of the 1980 Act or Part I of this Act;
(b) a tenancy which is granted in substitution for a tenancy falling within paragraph (a) above in pursuance of Part I of the said Act of 1967; and
(c) where in any case that Part applies as if there had been a single tenancy granted for a term beginning at the same time as the term under a tenancy falling within paragraph (a) above and expiring at the same time as the term under a later tenancy, that later tenancy."

but propose the following amendment thereto:

In line 1, at end insert—
(3A) The provisions of Part I of the said Act of 1967 shall not apply to a tenancy of a dwelling-house which is a house which is created by the grant of a lease in pursuance of Chapter I of Part I of the 1980 Act or Part I of this Act, nor to a sub-tenancy derived (whether directly or indirectly) from that tenancy, in any case where the landlord is a registered Housing Association and the freeholder is a body of persons or Trust established for charitable purposes only.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments (a) and (b) and Nos. 1 to 7.

Sir George Young: We have decided to accept the substance of the amendment to clause 1 which was passed against the Government in another place. These further amendments are to correct technical deficiences in the Lords amendment.
Clause 1 will extend the right to buy to property where the landlord's own interest is leasehold. It will give secure tenants the right to purchase a long sub-lease of their homes, assuming they meet the normal qualifying conditions. Under the terms of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, long leaseholders of houses would normally be able

to go on and enfranchise their leases and acquire the freehold. That was the position under clause 1 when the Bill first left this House.
Clause 1 was, however, amended in the other place to provide that, where the freehold interest in the property is held by a charitable body, tenants should be excluded not only from enfranchisement but also from the right-to-buy. The Government found that totally unacceptable, and the Lords amendment was reversed when the Bill returned to this House for further consideration on 12 April. We did, however, accept that there should be a high basis of compensation for freeholders in the case of enfranchisement of a right-to-buy lease; and the House approved that proposal. The Bill then returned to the other place for consideration of what the Government believed to be a reasonable compromise.
Although their Lordships accepted the main thrust of the Government's case, they did not accept it in its entirety; the result is the amendment which is no. 1 on today's Paper. The effect of that amendment would be to allow all eligible tenants to purchase a long sub-lease of their homes under the right-to-buy provisions of clause 1, but to deny rights of enfranchisement to tenants of housing associations in cases where the freeholder is a charitable body.
That certainly represents an improvement on the previous position. It narrows down the scope of the exclusion very considerable. It means that tenants of local authority leasehold property—such as the many tenants of such property in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), whose interests he has championed so formidably — will not find their rights restricted in any way.
Nevertheless, I do not think the distinction being made in the present amendment is wholly logical. It is not clear why the leasing of land to non-charitable housing associations should be singled out as a ground for special exemption for the freeholder — especially when the freeholders which appear to have been particularly in the minds of the promoters of this amendment, acedemic institutions such as the Oxford and Cambridge Colleges, aleady enjoy special protection under the Leasehold Reform Act.
I recognise that fears have been expressed that colleges and other charities will in future be less ready to make land available to housing associations if they know that lettings could give rise to rights of enfranchisement as a result of the right to buy being exercised. I do not myself believe, in view of the special protection enjoyed by our ancient universities and their unique right to safeguard their interests, that there is good reason for their attitude to making land available to change. However, I recognise the existence of the concern and the support it has received in another place.
The Government have, therefore, accepted that tenants of leasehold houses who acquire sub-leases under the right to buy from housing associations should be excluded from enfranchisement where the freehold belongs to a charity. The number of tenants likely to be affected is small. The information available to us suggests that, in total, there are only between 300 and 600 housing association dwellings on land leased from charitable freeholders. Very few of these are likely to be houses, where rights of enfranchisement would arise. In the case of houses, the length of lease which tenants will have the right to buy


—up to 125 years where the landlord's own lease allows—will often be such as to make the tenant's interest little different in practical terms from a freehold interest.
While I am not happy that tenants' rights should be restricted even to this extent, I must have regard to the views expressed in another place, and I believe this is the most satisfactory conculsion we can come to after long argument.

Sir Hugh Rossi: There is one point that puzzles me. In the amendment there is a reference to two rateable values. It is stated that
the rateable value of the dwelling-house does not exceed £1,000 in Greater London or £500 elsewhere".
These are historic. They are rateable values that were referred to in earlier leasehold reform legislation. I believe they have been amended in more recent legislation. We now refer to £1,500 in greater London and £750 elsewhere, I believe.
Can my hon. Friend tell me why we are accepting those outdated figures from their Lordships and are not amending this to bring it into line with current legislation?

Sir George Young: I think it best if I write to my hon. Friend on that point rather than try to deal with it now.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Amendments made to the Bill in lieu of Lords amendment No. 1:

In page 82, line 46, at beginning insert—
`Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (enfranchisement and extension of long leaseholds) shall not apply where, in the case of a tenancy or sub-tenancy to which this sub-paragraph applies, the landlord is a housing association and the freehold is owned by a body of persons or trust established for charitable purposes only.
(1A)'.

In page 83, line 2, leave out from 'the' to 'as' in line 3 and insert 'said Act of 1967'.—[Mr. Gow.]

Amendments made to Commons amendment in lieu of Lords amendment No. 1

In line 2, after 'tenancy', insert 'or sub-tenancy'.

In line 3, leave out
`or the tenant under a sub-tenancy directly or indirectly derived out of the tenancy'.

In line 10, leave out 'Sub-paragraph (4) above applies' and insert
`Sub-paragraphs (1) and (4) above apply'.

In line 13, at end insert
`and any sub-tenancy directly or indirectly derived out of such a tenancy'.

In line 14, leave out paragraph (b)

In line 17, leave out `that Part' and insert
`Part I of the said Act of 1967'.

In line 21, at end insert
`and any sub-tenancy directly or indirectly derived out of that later tenancy;
and sub-paragraph (4) above also applies to a tenancy which is granted in substitution for a tenancy or sub-tenancy falling within paragraph (a) or (c) above in pursuance of Part I of the said Act of 1967. —[Mr.Gow.]

Clause 2

VARIATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH RIGHT DOES NOT ARISE

Lords amendment: In page 3, line 13, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) For paragraph 5 of Part I of Schedule Ito the 1980 Act (circumstances in which the right to buy does not arise) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
5. The dwelling-house is designed or specially adapted to make it suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age, and it has always been the practice of the landlord to let the dwelling-house for occupation by persons of pensionable age; and in this paragraph "designed or specially adapted" means accommodation built or adapted in accordance with the principles of advice and guidance on the design of elderly persons' accommodation issued by the Secretary of State and available to landlords at the time of construction or adaptation.".").

Lords insist on their amendment to page 3, line 13, and disagree to the amendments proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof and to the amendment proposed by the Commons to the words so restored to the Bill,a for the following reason:
Because the said Commons amendments fail to provide adequate safeguards for the stock of local authority rented accommodation specially suitable for people of pensionable age.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): I beg to move,
That this House doth not insist on its disagreement to the Lords Amendment in page 3, line 13, or on the Amendments proposed by it in lieu thereof.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following Government amendment (a), thereto.
Government amendments Nos. 1 to 8.
The Motion relating to Lords reason No. 3 tabled by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel)—
That this House doth not insist on its Amendments in lines 11, 12 and 14 of the Amendment proposed by the Lords in page 84, line 1, or on its Amendments to the Amendment proposed by the Lords in page 90, line 58.
Government motions and amendments relating to Lords reason No. 3.

Mr. Gow: I should first like to apologise to the House for the fact that amendment (a) appeared on the order paper only today. When our original amendment appeared on the order paper on Friday, representations were made to my noble Friend Lord Bellwin by, Lady Birk and to me by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) that its wording did not meet some of their anxieties. The amendment was revised to take account of those representations. It may be helpful to the House if I give a brief background to these amendments. To understand that background fully we need to go back to debates in this House which took place during the passage of what is now the Housing Act 1980.
When introduced, and when it left this House, the Bill provided only for the exclusion from the right-to-buy of "sheltered" housing for the elderly. On 21 July 1980, an amendment moved by the noble Baroness in another place was carried against the Government's advice. That amendment provided that a dwelling
designed or specially adapted to make it suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age and which it is the practice of the landlord to let for occupation by persons of pensionable age" should be excluded from the right-to-buy.
On 6 August 1980, the amendment made in another place was considered by this House, which then agreed a


further amendment in the terms now set out in paragraph 5 of schedule 1 to the 1980 Act. It did so by 264 votes to 109. On the following day another place accepted that amendment and the Bill received the Royal Assent on 8 August 1980.
Paragraph 5 of schedule 1 provides that, where a tenant of an elderly person's dwelling applies to buy, the landlord can within six weeks apply to my right hon. Friend for a determination that the right-to-buy is
not to be capable of being exercised
The Secretary of State must make such a determination if he is satisfied that the dwelling is designed or specially adapted for occupation by persons of pensionable age and that it is the landlord's practice to let it only for occupation by such persons.
However, the application of the two tests in paragraph 5 has proved a source of difficulty. The distinction between "ordinary" dwellings and those provided for the elderly has proved in practice difficult to draw in a consistent and logical way; nor is it easy to decide what lettings and declarations of policy go to make a letting practice. The difficulties go further than that. It became clear that a large number of authorities were making little or no use of the paragraph 5 exemption procedure. In fact, about one-third of authorities in England and Wales have made no one single application to my right hon. Friend. Where authorities are known to be hostile to the right-to-buy, and not selling willingly, the only explanation can be either that they have misled their tenants into believing that they have no right to buy, or that they are turning down applications unlawfully. Direct evidence has emerged that this was indeed happening in a number of authorities.
That is a very serious matter. It was against that background that we had to consider how to improve the 1980 Act. There were two options—to retain paragraph 5 with improvements, but to pursue individually those authorities apparently defying the law, or to go for more radical change. We chose the latter course. We proposed that elderly tenants should have the right to buy on the same basis as other tenants but that landlords should have rights of pre-emption where dwellings were re-sold within 21 years of the original sale. As the House knows, these proposals, though accepted in this place, were rejected by the House of Lords.
Misgivings were expressed about the special problems of meeting the Housing needs of the elderly in rural areas, and about the practical value of the pre-emption provision. On two occasions another place has accepted an Opposition amendment which would have allowed landlords to exclude elderly persons' dwellings from the right to buy. Given the record of some authorities under the present provisions, the House will understand that that approach was unacceptable to the Government.
Because of the strong views expressed in another place, and bearing in mind the fact that an Opposition amendment was passed twice, against the advice of my noble Friend Lord Bellwin, albeit by one vote on the second occasion, we have decided that an approach based on the first option is the only one likely to win sufficient general acceptance. We shall retain the procedure basically in its present form but make what improvements we can. That is the effect of the Government amendments.
The most important is amendment (a), which provides a new paragraph 5 of schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1980. The amendment reverts to the 1980 position in that all authorities may apply to my right hon. Friend to have

elderly persons' dwellings exempted from the right to buy. At the same time, we propose to remove some of the difficulties that have arisen under the present system by clarifying the criteria to be applied. These criteria are set out at present in clause 7.
Subparagraph (ii) introduces new time limits within which the landlord must apply to my right hon. Friend for a determination. The present rule is that an application must be made within six weeks of the tenant's application to buy. However, section 5 of the 1980 Act provides that the landlord must respond to the tenant's right to buy application, admitting or denying it within four or eight weeks, depending on whether the landlord has to consult other landlords before he can respond.
The two actions—the response to the tenant and the application to my right hon. Friend—should be closely related. For that reason, we propose that the same time limits should apply to both.
The other amendments in the group are technical or consequential. The only one to which I want to refer is amendment No. 2. That deletes the provision at present in the Bill that would give landlords a right of pre-emption in respect of elderly persons.' dwellings. That provision was introduced in substitution for the exemption procedure, but if that exemption procedure is retained, as we propose, there is no case for pre-emption as well.

Mr. Simon Hughes: My right hon. Friend the leader of ihe Liberal party and Liberal Members here tabled, together with members of the Social Democratic party, the original objection to changing what the other place has twice told the House was unacceptable.
The arguments have been canvassed ever since, in 1980, the Government were forced to accept opposition to their then Housing Bill, and that their provisions for the old were not acceptable. At a very late stage in the Report stage debates in the House, the Government came up with a proposal to introduce the right to buy for those in that very precious and limited sector of accommodation, namely property especially built, designed or adapted for old people. That is not sheltered accommodation. It is in a separate category and has always been exempted from the right to buy provisions.
The Minister described the law as it was between the 1980 Act coming into force and last December when the Bill was considered in the House, as
a wholly undesirable position…I can assure the House that we do not operate provisions that can give rise to accusations of inconsistency without a feeling of considerable unease.
Further on he said,
That in itself represents a formidable case for reforming the present paragraph 5 arrangements and replacing them by something simpler.
A paragraph later, he said:
I am forced to conclude that the practice of denying claims to buy by elderly tenants without using the paragraph 5 procedure is quite widespread." —[Official Report, 21 December 1983; Vol. 51, c. 455.]
Here and in the other place, the Minister was pressed. to explain the Government's proposals and to give facts and figures as to how they would affect the old. The Government have consistently failed to explain the: implications for the old. As a result, my party has insisted that they should accept what the other place is trying to do. As the amendment now tabled in the name of the Secretary of State for the Environment does not do that, and returns us to the unsatisfactory position of 1980, we shall divide the House if the Government persist with it.
We shall press the matter for three reasons. First, in constitutional terms, the Government know that, unless they contrive this route through, there is no possibility of the Bill getting on to the statute book this session. On this subject, it has been rejected twice by the other place. The Parliament Act would come into force if we tried to send it to the other place again in this form. The Government are therefore trying to amend the Lords amendment, but in fact they are rejecting it out of hand, and replacing it with the unsatisfactory original procedure.
12 midnight
Secondly, the Secretary of State is reinserting a provision that allows him to determine what local authorities should be determining for themselves. It should not be central Government's job to decide on an arbitrary basis, which might affect different sorts of property in various parts of the country differently, which properties can be sold to those living in them and which cannot. We reject that method of determining which properties should be sold. Only six months ago the Minister said that it was highly unsatisfactory and expensive in terms of time and money, and caused delay.
Thirdly, it would have been possible for the Government to come forward with provisions that could properly have defined the position, and allowed tenants to be informed of it. The principle which the Government have failed to apply is that the elderly should be able to continue to live in low-level or bungalow accommodation that is most suited to them and that is built at cost. Once that housing stock is no longer needed, it should be retained in the public sector — as it is in such short supply — for the tens of thousands of those on the waiting lists. The Government's proposals will not achieve that, and we are returning to an unsatisfactory system.
Therefore, we reject the compromise, because it does not go far enough in dealing with the real problem. It conceals the Government's failure to propose policies for housing the old, who represent one of the most substantial and vulnerable groups in our society, in a way that any Government with a conscience should do. We await an answer, and until we receive it, we shall press the Government in every way possible, and hope that they will eventually see the folly of their ways.

Mr. John Fraser: The Government have twice been defeated in the other place, and the preservation of homes for the elderly has been saved. Indeed, great tribute should be paid to Baroness Birk and her noble friends—Liberal, Conservative and alliance—for their persistence, determination and advocacy of the case for homes for the elderly during the Bill's passage in the other place.
The amendments that stand in the Government's name represent a victory for the opposition to the Government's original proposals, for compassion for the elderly and for common sense as against the Government's original obsessive desire to proceed with sales at any cost even where the property is particularly suited to an elderly person. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has said, we are not talking about sheltered accommodation for the elderly. That has always been exempt from the right to buy. However, we are talking about housing that is particularly suitable for the elderly. Nobody knows quite how many such houses

and flats there are, but out of the total local authority stock in England and Wales of about 4·5 million homes probably at least 250,000 are particularly suitable for the elderly. But nobody quite knows because there has never been a complete count and we are not talking about sheltered accommodation which is more easily counted.
We also know that of the 1·5 million people on housing waiting lists in England and Wales, probably between about 100,000 and 200,000 people are elderly. Therefore, one has a special responsibility to those who are fragile and in the evening of their lives to try to make provision for good housing for them.
We know that sales of houses which are particularly suitable for the elderly are proceeding at the rate of around 3,000 to 4,000 a year and that the sale of homes suitable for letting to the elderly is about equal to the construction of new homes which are non-sheltered. As fast as new homes are being provided which are suitable to people of pensionable age the same number of homes is being sold under the Housing Act 1980.
The Government have accepted the argument—they have done it reluctantly but I shall not try to rob them of the credit for doing so—that housing that is particularly suitable for the elderly ought now to be preserved. The argument that we have put forward, as have Cross Benchers and others in the other place, is a recognition that there need to be homes for rent as well as for sale and that there is no golden or absolute rule. People ought to have choice.
The evidence is that the elderly are much more likely to need somewhere to rent, particularly when their incomes shrink, and there is probably a large market in Britain, so far untapped, for the elderly of pensionable age who want to sell their dwellings and release capital which they need in their old age. There is probably a much wider need for housing for rent for the elderly than any other income and age group.
Sales would be a disaster, not just in rural areas. The sale of one or two homes in a sparsely populated area would rob an area of the entire stock of homes suitable for elderly people. But it is no less of a tragedy and disaster to urban areas where older people often feel themselves unsafe and threatened in areas which have changed their character in the past few years. There is no distinction at all to be drawn between homes in rural and urban areas. The turnover of homes which are suitable for people of pensionable age is likely to be much greater in that section than it is in others simply because of the fact of people's age. The loss of homes for renting in that sector is likely to be even greater.
At the end of the day, if I have to make a choice between the Lords amendment which has been persisted in twice in the other place against the Government's advice, and the Government's amendment (a) on the Order Paper in starred form — altered because of representations that I and my noble Friends have made to the Government—I will choose the Government's amendment for four reasons.
First, I have consulted local authorities, particularly the Association of Metropolitan Authorities; and its view is that the Government amendment would in the long run be preferable to the way in which the present Lords amendment works. Secondly, and this goes to the root of the matter, the Government's amendment does not tie the exemption to the original design. If one looks at the Lords amendment it says that the property has to be designed or


specifically adapted. It talks about advice available to landlords at the time of construction or adaptation. It may well be that houses which were not originally designed for people of pensionable age later on turn out to be adapted for their purpose, and therefore it is best to make it clear that over the passage of time housing which was not originally designed for the elderly can be used for that purpose. In my constituency, a tower block, which was very unpopular with families with young children, was later used for warden accommodation. That change has proved to be extremely successful. It is preferable to look at the current state of the use of premises, rather than the original adaptation and design.
The third reason why I prefer the Government amendment is that the measure does not now tie the exemption to continuous letting to a person of pensionable age. The Government amendment says that the property must be let to a tenant or to a predecessor in title of pensionable age. Under the Government amendment one is not tied to absolute continuity of use by a person of pensionable age. The Lords amendment says that it must always be the practice of the landlord to let the dwelling house for the occupation of persons of pensionable age.
The fourth reason why I support the Government amendment is that there is much greater flexibility for local authorities in relation to when the property was designed and adapted and the continuity of letting. That is an improvement over the wording contained in paragraph 5 of schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1980. Under that Act, it always had to be the practice for the landlord to let only for occupations by persons of pensionable age. The protection of the 1980 Act was lost if there was letting to a person of pensionable age, then letting to a person who was disabled and then a reversion of letting to a person of pensionable age.
If I had total charge of these matters and were able to command a majority in the House and in the other place, I would choose a measure that was even more far-reaching. One must make a choice, and on the advice that I received and on my consideration of the matters, I find that the Government amendment is preferable. Those who advised me on these matters, especially the local authorities, take the same view. For that reason, I prefer Government amendment (a) to the amendment from the other place.
I hope that, at the end of this long debate—I mean "long" in terms of the past months, rather than tonight—there has been a growing recognition of the necessity to have the right to rent as well as the right to buy and that what matters above all, especially to the elderly people, is the right to have a choice. A choice, especially for those of pensionable age, would have been reduced if the Government had persisted in their original intentions. I believe that out of this legislation a victory for common sense and, above all, for the elderly has emerged, and I therefore welcome the change of heart that has been evinced by the Minister's statement.

Mr. John Farr: I welcome Government amendment (a). I congratulate the Government on the compromise that they have reached. Many Conservative Members would have preferred the Lords amendment to have been accepted in toto, but, nevertheless, the

Government amendment is acceptable and meets the fears of many people who are concerned about purpose-built local authority homes in rural areas.
A good deal of feeling has been generated on this matter. It is a fact that elderly people do not necessarily want to buy their house. All the recent national surveys have shown that a much higher proportion of elderly people than of younger age groups wish to rent accommodation. The main reason is that the elderly are too old and too frail to cope with the problems of organising matters such as household insurance. In addition, all the statistics show that a high and growing proportion of elderly people are likely to have the same requirements. In many largely rural authority districts, enterprising schemes have been established to make life easier for elderly people living in groups.
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said that he thought there might be the same difficulty for the urban elderly dweller as for the rural elderly dweller, but there is a specific difficulty. In my district of Harborough, which is a fairly rural district, there are 26 different communities of purpose-built housing for the elderly. The council is in the process of linking these units by radio and by a warden who can be reached by radio. The linkage will cover quite a large distance between many of the units. The same system has already been introduced by the Fylde borough council. The Harborough council is emphatic that it would be wrong to give the elderly the right to buy the houses in these circumstances.
In many villages there are only a handful of bungalows that have been built for the elderly. It is important to keep these pools of special accommodation available for the elderly.
I welcome the compromise solution which the Government have reached. I think that it will meet the bill for my council and I have great pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Gow: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to the speech made by the official spokesman for the Liberal party, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). It was clear that the hon. Gentleman had not understood the consequence of the Government's amendment.
We had a characteristically thoughtful speech from the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). As he rightly said, the Government's amendment does not go back to the 1980 position, which I described on 12 December as "very unsatisfactory". We have made significant improvements on the position in the 1980 Act, which I readily concede was not satisfactory.
One of the main problems with the 1980 Act was that the criteria there set out involved detailed research into the intentions of authorities, to which the hon. Member for Norwood rightly referred, when dwellings were built, and to the history of previous lettings, not infrequently involving inquiries about the practice of authorities prior to local government reorganisation. The new tests, which are spelt out clearly in the Government's amendment, avoid those difficulties. The test of physical characteristics, by referring to suitability, will focus on the present state of the dwelling rather than on its history. The letting test will involve only the present letting, except in the case of a succession.
If the Liberal party should divide the House, it will show that the party's official spokesman on housing has failed to understand the debate

Question put and agreed to.

Amendment (a) proposed to the Lords Amendment: In line 2, leave out from first 'of to end of Amendment and insert 'that Part of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
5. — (1) The Secretary of State has determined, on the application of the landlord, that the right to buy is not to be capable of being exercised with respect to the dwelling-house; and he shall so determine if, and only if, he is satisfied that the dwelling-house—

(a) is particularly suitable, having regard to its location, size, design, heating system and other features, for occupation by persons of pensionable age; and
(b) was let to the tenant or to a predecessor in title of his for occupation by a person of pensionable age or a physically disabled person (whether the tenant or predecessor or any other person).


(2) An application for a determination under this paragraph shall be made within four weeks or, in a case falling within section 5(2) of this Act, eight weeks of the service of the notice claiming to exercise the right to buy.".'. — [Sir George Young.]

Question put, That the amendment be made to the Lords amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 6.

Division No. 362]
[12.16 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Gow, Ian


Amess, David
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Arnold, Tom
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Ashby, David
Harris, David


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Hayhoe, Barney


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Heddle, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Henderson, Barry


Bellingham, Henry
Hirst, Michael


Berry, Sir Anthony
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Jessel, Toby


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lang, Ian


Bottomley, Peter
Lester, Jim


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Lightbown, David


Braine, Sir Bernard
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Bright, Graham
Macfarlane, Neil


Brinton, Tim
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Maclean, David John


Bruinvels, Peter
Malins, Humfrey


Burt, Alistair
Maples, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Marlow, Antony


Cash, William
Mather, Carol


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Chapman, Sydney
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Chope, Christopher
Mellor, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Moate, Roger


Conway, Derek
Moynihan, Hon C.


Coombs, Simon
Murphy, Christopher


Cope, John
Needham, Richard


Couchman, James
Neubert, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Newton, Tony


Dicks, Terry
Norris, Steven


Dorrell, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Ottaway, Richard


Dover, Den
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Dunn, Robert
Patten, John (Oxford)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Evennett, David
Powell, William (Corby)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Powley, John


Fallon, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Farr, John
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Favell, Anthony
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Roe, Mrs Marion


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Goodlad, Alastair
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy





Sayeed, Jonathan
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Thome, Neil (Ilford S)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Thurnham, Peter


Sims, Roger
Tracey, Richard


Skeet, T. H. H.
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waddington, David


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Spencer, Derek
Walden, George


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Waller, Gary


Squire, Robin
Watts, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Steen, Anthony
Whitfield, John


Stern, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wood, Timothy


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sumberg, David



Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Terlezki, Stefan
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. John Major.


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter



Thompson, Donald (Calder V)





NOES


Alton, David
Wallace, James


Ashdown, Paddy



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. A. J. Beith and Mr. Michael Meadowcroft.


Kirkwood, Archy

Question accordingly agreed to.

Consequential amendments made to the Bill:

No. 1, in page 3, line 16, leave out
'subsection (1) above and the provision made by subsection'
and insert 'subsections (1) and'.

No. 2, in page 8, line 18, leave out clause 7.

No. 3, in page 22, line 11, leave out '18A(2) or' (inserted by a Lords amendment agreed to by this House).

No. 4, in page 63, line 32, leave out `18A(1) or'.

No. 5, in page 68, line 27, leave out '18A(1) or'.

No. 6, in page 85, line 10, leave out paragraph 10.

No. 7, in page 88, line 29, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 32 and insert
'Part IV of Schedule 2 to that Act (charges and other matters)'.

No. 8, in page 90, column 3, leave out lines 48 and 49. —[Sir George Young.]

Schedule 10

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Lords amendment: In page 84, line 1, at end insert—
(".Subsections (4) and (4A) of section 3 of the Housing Act 1980 (meaning of "house", "flat", "dwelling-house" etc.) shall have effect as if any reference to the right to buy included a reference to the right to be granted a shared ownership lease.
.Section 4(3) of that Act (joint tenants and members of family occupying dwelling-house otherwise than as joint tenants) shall have effect as if the reference to Chapter I of Part I of that Act included a reference to Part I of this Act.
. — (1) In section 5(2) of that Act (notice claiming to exercise the right to buy) for the words "three years" there shall be substituted the words "two years".
(2) The amendment made by sub-paragraph (1) above shall not apply where the landlord's notice under section 5(1) of the 1980 Act was served before the commencement of Part I of this Act.
. At the end of section 6 of that Act (purchase price) there shall be added the following subsection—
(6) Where the secure tenant's tenancy has at any time been assigned by virtue of section 37A of this Act, the persons specified in subsection (5) above shall not include any person who under that tenancy was a secure tenant before the assignment " ").

The Lords disagree to the amendments proposed by the Commons in lines 11, 12 and 14 of their amendment in


page 84, line 1, and to the two amendments proposed by the Commons to their amendment in page 90, line 58, for the following reason:
Because it would be inconsistent with their insistence and disagreement to agree to the Commons amendments.

Question, That this House doth insist on the amendment proposed by it in line 11 of the Lords amendment in page 84, line 1, put and agreed to.

Question, That this House doth not insist on the amendment proposed by it in line 12 of the said Lords amendment, put and agreed to.

Amendment (a) made to the said Lords amendment in lieu thereof, in line 12, after 'buy)' insert
'there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1A) A landlord's notice under subsection (1) above shall inform the tenant of any application for a determination under paragraph 5 of Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act and, in the case of a notice admitting the tenant's right, shall be without prejudice to any determination made on such an application.
(1A) In subsection (2) of that section.'. — [Sir George Young.]

Question, That this House doth not insist on the amendment proposed by it in line 14 of the said Lords amendment, put and agreed to.

Amendments made to the said Lords amendment in lieu thereof:

(a) in line 14, after 'above', insert
`shall not apply where the tenant's claim to exercise the right to buy was made before the coming into force of Part I of this Act; and the amendment made by sub-paragraph (1A) above.'.

(b) in line 16, leave out 'commencement' and insert `coming into force'.—[Sir George Young.]

Question, That this House doth not insist on the two amendments proposed by it to the Lords amendment in page 90, line 58, put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That a Committee be appointed to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords for insisting on an amendment proposed by the Commons to a Lords amendment, to which the Lords have disagreed.—[Mr. Gow.]

Ordered,
That Mr. John Fraser, Mr. Ian Gow, Mr. Allen McKay, Mr. John Major and Sir George Young be members of the Committee.—[Mr. Gow.]

Ordered,
That Three be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Gow.]

Ordered,
That the Committee do withdraw immediately. — [Mr. Gow.]

ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That, in respect of the Road Traffic Regulation Bill [Lords], Notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Orders of the Day — National Health Service

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: This Adjournment debate had its origins last December. when our son David went into the Royal Free hospital to have his tonsils out. He was to be one of a surgical list of 14, and, to our surprise, he turned out to be the only one of those 14 patients who actually showed up. I asked the hospital whether it had any figures on non-attendance, and it told me that it did not. My hon. Friend the Minister will remember that I put down a parliamentary question on this, and he told me that the Government did not have any information on non-attendance. I then wrote to each of the 14 regional health authorities, asking them whether they could give me the numbers and percentages of non-attendance for out-patients and in-patients over the past five years. Some 12 of the 14 regions wrote back and told me that they did not have any figures, and nor did any of the districts.
Two regions did have some information, and it might be useful if I were to put the information that I have on the record. East Anglian, Trent, Northern region, Oxford, Wessex, North West Thames, South East Thames and South West Thames had no information whatsoever. The South Western region, Yorkshire and Mersey each had one hospital, or one short-term study that produced some figures. In the South Western region, the non-attendance of out-patients was 14·8 per cent., in Yorkshire, it was 23·2 per cent. and 1·9 per cent. for in-patients, and in Mersey it was 14 per cent. for in-patients. In North East Thames, there was one hospital that, in 1982, had an out-patient absentee rate of 11 per cent., with an in-patient rate for the Newham district in 1983 of about 18 per cent.
I was also given figures from one of the regional administrators which might pertain to London. He sent me details of abortive London ambulance trips. Almost 1,800 trips a week by the London ambulance service are non-viable. They go to collect a patient but return without him. As they go to bring patients to appointments at clinics or at in-patients, it is a measure of what happens in London.
Two regions had statistics. The north-west region had figures from about 20 districts, which showed an average out-patients absentee figure of 12·6 per cent. The in-patients figure for 1977 was 13·6 per cent. The west midlands gave me figures from nine districts, which showed an out-patients absentee figure of 11·2 per cent, and two figures for in-patients of 12·3 per cent. and of 3·1 per cent.
The figures vary widely according to the hospital and specialty. They range from about 2 per cent. to 30 per cent. The figures are, however, sketchy and few and far between. What we discovered was that no proper statistics were being kept. That reflects a huge waste of manpower and resources. In the case of our son, a full operating theatre team was in attendance for a day in a theatre in a London teaching hospital, which had been booked for the day. After the team of specialists operated on David in the morning, they had nothing to do for the rest of the day and the theatre was not used for any other purpose.
I wonder whether the figures make sense because the average national non-attendance for out-patients must be between 12 per cent. and 15 per cent., and for in-patients


between 10 per cent. and 12 per cent. The latest figures from the Minister and his Department showed that there were about 35·5 million out-patients appointments in 1982—the last year for which figures are available. That means the between 4·25 million and 5·33 million outpatients clinic appointments were not kept. On the figures, which the Minister gave during questions today when he said that a wasted out-patients appointment might be worth anything between £20 and £50, the waste to the National Health Service of out-patients appointments alone is between £85 million and £266 million a year. The Minister will be as disturbed by those figures as I am.
The in-patients estimate seems to be reasonable. In 1982 there were approximately 348,000 beds, of which approximately 278,000 were occupied—that is an 80 per cent. occupancy rate. I suggest that the non-attendance figures are about 10 per cent. It does not seem unreasonable that about half of the empty beds were due to non-attendance and half to keeping them free for emergencies.
No hon. Member has been more supportive of the Government's health policy than I have. The Government have initiated many reviews, all of which were designed to produce information, which would enable managers in the NHS to run the service more efficiently and cost effectively.
The Rayner scrutiny of non-ambulance transport showed that we had more vehicles than drivers and that the average district could save up to £70,000 per year. The Rayner scrutiny of recruitment advertising showed that the Health Service was spending £8 million per year advertising to its own staff. The study on central stores showed that 20 per cent. was being added to the cost of goods compared with best commercial practice of between 4 per cent. and 12 per cent. Presumably, at one time nobody knew those figures, but it was suspected that there was waste so a review was undertaken which identified the waste so that better value for money could be achieved and directed towards care of the patient.
That is the essence of my case to my hon. Friend the Minister today. He and his colleagues have an enviable record of commitment to cost effectiveness and value for money in the Health Service—for the sake of the patients, not for the sake of the Government's reputation—and I see this debate very much in that context. If thousands of beds are standing empty thousands of people on the waiting lists must be suffering because they cannot get into those beds which are being blocked by people who do not show up.
My hon. Friend the Minister, quite properly, is ahead of me on this. He and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health set up the Körner committee to examine statistics in the Health Service. We have both read its first three reports and my hon. Friend has already committed the Government not just to accepting but to implementing those recommendations, which include the subject of today's debate.
I refer my hon. Friend the Minister to some words which he will recognise not just for their wisdom but for the tone in which they are given. In a written answer on 12 April my hon. Friend the Minister said to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King):

Health authority managers need information about the services for which they are responsible and about the resources of money and manpower which go into providing those services. It has long been recognised that the information currently available to NHS management is inadequate. It is too often incomplete, inaccurate and out of date. The result is that district and unit managers are not as well equipped as they should be to plan, budget and review their performance in the ways we are asking of them." —[Official Report, 12 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 381–2.]
My hon. Friend states better than I can exactly what I wish to put to him today. There is no point in a commitment to cost effectiveness if we do not give the new Griffiths managers the technology to enable them to do the job.
It has been agreed that the regions and districts should be computerised as quickly as possible. The regions which wrote to me made it clear that they could not begin to tackle the problems of non-attendance until they had information on computer which would allow them easily to resolve the problems uncovered. Those statistics are needed urgently. We shall not know why people do not show up for clinic and in-patient appointments until we are able to analyse the statistics.
I do not know why so mant people do not show up, but I think that my hon. Friend will accept that if it is because they do not need medical treatment we could knock 100,000 of the national waiting list today and bring the total down from about 720,000 to about 625,000. Some may not show up because they are already dead, some because they are already better, and some because the consultant put them on the waiting list in order to get them out of his clinic or surgery and had no real intention of ever giving them any treatment. That may sound harsh, but general practitioners use prescription forms in that way, day in and day out, throughout the NHS.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): There is sometimes a comparison with letters to Ministers.

Dr. Mawhinney: Just so. There is also a suspicion that many do not show up because the clinics are badly organised, and that consultants are not very keen to improve their techniques to make it possible for people to attend.
Some people may, of course, be really unable to attend at the given time and may have problems as a result.
There would be one other advantage, which I know that my hon. Friend will acknowledge, in having the statistics computerised. It would enable regions and districts to determine where the shortest waiting lists are within any region.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle). It is a delight to see him in his place at this late hour. My hon. Friend initiated an Adjournment debate on orthopaedic surgery waiting lists on 15 May 1981, and has been assiduous in following the matter up. He will be encouraged to know that some of us have been pressing our own regional health authorities on the matter for months and years. The answer has been that they can do nothing until they are computerised.
My time has run out. My message to my hon. Friend is simple. First, there is a huge gap in our knowledge of what is going on in the health service in terms of non-attendance by patients both at out-patient clinics and for in-patient appointments. It is very worrying to discover that 12 out of 14 regions had no information from their districts to channel through to my hon. Friend.
Secondly, we must give priority to computerising the districts and the regions, because we cannot tackle the


problems until that is done. Even if—dare I say this to my hon. Friend? —we have to spend a little more money in the short term, the long-term savings will make the short-term front-loading more than worthwhile.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with me about those two points. The third point is the one that I hope he will respond to this evening. The point is that the need is urgent. It should not just be given priority by the regions. The Government should make it clear to the regions that the matter is given high and urgent priority by the Government. If my hon. Friend would throw his weight and that of his Department behind my request, computerisation would arrive much more quickly than might otherwise be the case. The consequences of that for the better management of the Health Service and the alleviation of suffering would be out of all proportion to the cost and effort of computerisation.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the courteous attention that he has paid to my comments.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) has addressed this problem with his characteristic fairness and clarity of reasoning. He has hit several nails on the head, and I must hit one or two as well. Each of us is as exasperated as the other that we do not have the information. It must be wrong, for example, that until two years ago we had no clear information about the number of people whom we employed at any one time in the National Health Service. We have a long way to go before information will be as refined as my hon. Friend, I, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health would like. There is no point in deceiving ourselves about that.
My hon. Friend drew our attention to just one area in which we suffer from a lack of information in the NHS—operation waiting times, outpatient waiting times and the failure of patients to turn up for appointments for a variety of reasons. We must set the problem against the background of the enormous size of the business that the NHS runs. Each year there are about 36 million outpatient attendances, more than 5 million regular day-patient attendances and nearly 6 million inpatient discharges. Problems occur. At present, information about the rate of non-attendance for inpatient and outpatient appointments is not collected rountinely throughout the country, although some health authorities collect some information.
Important work is done by the Steering Group on Health Services Information, which we know as the Körner committee. I pay warm tribute to Mrs. Körner for the four and a half years of sterling service that she has given to the NHS in an attempt to sort out this complex problem. I am glad to see my hon. Friend nodding assent to that tribute, which I also pay on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The steering group made detailed recommendations in its first report, which are designed to rectify the problems to which my hon. Friend referred.
For outpatients, the report recommends that all districts collect information showing the number of patients with an appointment who did not attend. For inpatients who were to be admitted from waiting lists, the report recommends that all districts collect information showing the number of patients for whom arrangements to admit

were made, but who were not admitted, distinguishing those who were not admitted because they failed to attend. My hon. Friend and others could be excused for asking why that information has not been collected routinely since 1948.
We have asked health authorities to plan to implement the committee's first report throughout the country by April 1987. That might seem a long time away, but the implementation of this and the other Körner reports represent a substantial programme and we do not believe that it would be feasible to ask the service to proceed more quickly on this as against all other management tasks that we have set in the post-Griffiths era. It is open to individual districts and regions to progress at their own pace in the meantime. If I were appointed general manager to a district health authority under the post-Griffiths arrangements, I should want to make pretty rapid progress to demonstrate to my authority that money was being spent in a controlled way and not being wasted when it could have been spenton patient care.
By 1987 we expect at least one third of all districts to have a computerised patient administration system. Most will have the facility to monitor waiting lists and to provide consultants and family doctors with information about non-attenders. However, I think we must be careful not to pin our hopes too high and think that these systems can solve the real problem, because I do not think they can. Knowing what happened in the past is not of itself particularly helpful in overcoming the problem of filling gaps in theatre and clinical lists which appear without warning. There perhaps we need—and doubtless the Health Service will be directing its attention towards the need—attitude surveys which pick up exactly why people who have a good reason for not attending, such as further illness, bereavement, a recent move or whatever, do not show up and why they waste so much money which should be spent correctly on patient care.
Having a reserve list of patients on standby may sound attractive, but even if patients were willing to co-operate and come in at extremely short notice to fill in gaps, for example, in theatre time, it would be extremely difficult at such short notice to find patients sufficiently similar in nature that they could be slotted in without causing major disruption to theatre usage or clinic time. I am not saying that one should not move towards this system, but there are a lot of problems. One of the problems is cost.
My hon. Friend correctly raised the urgent need for computerisation in the National Health Service to provide us with better information for better planning or, to use his phraseology, more expenditure up front to produce longer-term benefits for patients. A computer-based system which can sort through those patients still on the waiting list and identify candidates on the basis of some predetermined classification is theoretically possible, but complex and certainly expensive. The systems available or under development at present will cost a district between £0·1 million and £0·5 million to install. That is an investment nationally of about £50 million or more and that money would have to come out of money already available to health authorities. No doubt all sorts of lessons can be learnt as local systems are developed. It is right that as more health authorities set up and use computerised systems, they also develop them to meet local situations. The needs of urban areas may be different from the needs of rural areas.

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend mentioned the cost to individual districts of putting in computers. Is he willing to consider the possibility that the main frame computer should be put in at regional level and that districts could then each have a terminal feeding in, which would probably be cheaper than each district putting in its own computer?

Mr. Patten: This is the sort of issue which has already been addressed by my Department's computer policy committee. It is probably clear that the sort of work carried out by Mrs. Körner's committee on information and the work of the computer policy committee on the purchase of main frame computers and associated software will have to come much closer together. They will be addressing themselves to the strategic points to which my hon. Friend has just referred. The sums to be spent are huge.
In the four minutes left to me I must turn to the other side of the coin from the development by the NHS, albeit belatedly, of a system which enables us to collect information, even though at considerable cost. The other side of the coin is the patient's individual responsibility to keep the appointment made for him as in any form of contract, both the Health Service and the patient have a responsibility. The patient's responsibility is, if possible, to keep the appointment made for him, or at the very least, to let the hospital know in good time if he cannot or no longer wishes to attend.
This afternoon during Question Time I said that patients had a moral responsibility, if they could not use hospital time or clinic time, to let the hospital or clinic know. I hope that, thanks to the publicity which will doubtless flow from this issue being raised on the Adjournment by my hon. Friend, more and more people will be given cause for thought if they are tempted to misuse the National Health Service. The NHS is based on the informal contract

between what we promise to supply and what people want. However sophisticated a system is developed to ensure efficient call-up of in and outpatients, the Health Service must know that the majority of those called will attend. To achieve that we need the co-operation of the public.
Interest has been shown in the idea of a bed bank for inpatients using a computer system to make information about the length of waiting lists in hospitals readily available to GPs. That is a sophisticated method of bringing information technology to the aid of an approach which the Department has advocated since the mid-1970s. It will not reduce waiting lists overall, but it might be a useful method by which the more extreme differences between hospitals and districts can be ironed out. That is why the Department and the West Midlands health authority have been discussing a pilot project. I welcome the great interest in the topic by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle).

Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): I think that we have three minutes to spare. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) for his courteous remarks and my hon. Friend the Minister for his welcome announcement. May we debate the findings of the pilot scheme in due course?

Mr. Patten: We shall have to wait to see, when the pilot scheme is set up, how long it takes and what it produces. With his characteristic interest in such matters, I know that my hon. Friend will press us further. I thank him and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough for raising this important issue.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at one minute past One o'clock.